Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to education authorities recommending that the building of new comprehensive schools shall not be under-taken until funds are earmarked for the entire project and that comprehensive reorganisation shall not take place until the project is completed.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): No, Sir. Where a progressive increase in school population is foreseen, it is often necessary to build a new secondary school by instalments. It will depend on the local circumstances whether the school can then be organised on a comprehensive basis before the whole project is complete.

Mr. Marten: In those conditions is it not rather unsatisfactory to call a unit which is scattered over the countryside in a number of centres a comprehensive school? Is not that an illusion, and should not they wait until the school is ready before calling it a comprehensive school?

Miss Bacon: Sometimes when even a part of the school is built it can be organised on comprehensive lines. As I said, it depends on local circumstances and numbers.

Magazine "New Worlds" (Grants)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what grant was made out of public funds to the magazine "New Worlds" during 1967–68.

The Minister Of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): Grants totalling £1,200 were made by the Arts Council.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a leading British newsagent refused to handle the March edition of the magazine? In view of the great shortage of money for all sorts of educational projects, does my right hon. Friend think that it is justified to spend any money at all on this sort of publication?

Miss Lee: A decision on matters such as this must lie with the Arts Council. I understand that its literary panel has expressed its disappointment at the fluctuating literary standard of the magazine, and has decided to offer a grant of £600 towards four further issues of the magazine on the condition that the money is used for fees for new contributors.

Mr. Channon: No one wants to see censorship applied by the Arts Council, but would not the right hon. Lady agree that there must be a minimum public standard of decency when public money is involved?

Miss Lee: I think that we must also agree on who will set the standards. I think that Lord Goodman, the Chairman of the Arts Council, put it very well when he said:
We must be very slow to discourage experiment even if it runs counter to our own notions.

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to discuss detailed grants by the Arts Council when the whole purpose of the Council is to remove authority for the distribution of public funds for the arts from the Minister and from this House?

Mr. Speaker: If the Question is on the Order Paper it must be in order.

Educational Priority Areas (School Building)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reallocate the £16 million for schoolbuilding in education priority areas, to ensure that local education authorities in the West Midlands get a fair share of this sum, especially Wolverhampton, which has 12 per cent. immigrant children in its schools, and


where more than 400 children of school age, some of secondary school age, are unable to get a school place.

Miss Bacon: No, Sir. The £16 million programme was for the replacement of schools in unsatisfactory buildings in areas of serious social deprivation. We have authorised the building of four new primary schools in Wolverhampton in the current year's ordinary school building programme and increased the Authority's minor works allocation. This should help Wolverhampton to deal with the immediate problems arising from the influx of immigrant children.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The allocation to the education authority of the four additional primary schools has rather over-taken this Question, but may I tell my right hon. Friend that we are indeed grateful for that help to the local authority? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we still need more teachers, and will she help us to provide nursery education for the under-fives in this very overcrowded area?

Miss Bacon: I cannot commit myself on the last part of that question, because, as my hon. Friend knows, there is a serious shortage of infant teachers for the over-fives. Next week my right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Wolverhampton, and we can discuss all these questions with the authority.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the terrible problems which exist in places like Wolverhampton, would not it be sensible to curb what the right hon. Lady called the influx of immigrant children and give the authority a chance to overcome the problems?

Miss Bacon: The children who are coming into the country now are mostly those whose parents are here, and I think that it would be inhuman to say that they could not join their parents.

Handicapped Children (Corporal Punishment)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decision has now been reached on ending caning in schools for handicapped children.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): I should greatly deprecate the use of corporal punishment on handicapped children but the ultimate decision on this matter must depend upon the professional judgment of the teachers.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend going back on the clear statement by his predecessor that caning in such schools must cease? If he is, it is most deplorable. Will my right hon. Friend recognise the feeling among most people that there can be no justification at all for the caning of handicapped pupils in either State or private schools?

Mr. Short: What would be deplorable would be for me to try to lay down how teachers should carry out their professional duties. I hope that we can make some progress on the question of professional status and that this is the kind of question which teachers themselves will consider in the context of a code of professional conduct.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. I asked whether the Minister was going back on what his predecessor said, and he has not answered——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dissatisfaction with an answer is not a point of order.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is a clear distinction to be drawn in this matter between mentally handicapped children and educationally subnormal children?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is very unfair. I prefaced by reply by saying that I deprecated the use of corporal punishment for handicapped children, but teachers themselves must deal with this problem in the context of their own code of professional conduct.

Primary Schools, Leicester (Commonwealth Immigrants)

Mr. Tom Boardman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of children in primary schools in the city of Leicester who are, or whose parents were, Commonwealth immigrants, and what is the highest proportion in any of such schools.

Miss Bacon: About 7 per cent. in January, 1967; the highest proportion in any Leicester primary school was 55 per cent.

Mr. Boardman: In view of the real problem, which is now generally recognised, in regard to primary schools, will the right hon. Lady consider the concentration on the fixed resources available on extending and improving primary schools and abandoning the extravagant Socialist plans for complete comprehensive education?

Miss Bacon: No, I could not promise that. Nevertheless, we are anxious to do everything possible to help where there is difficulty because of immigration.

Teaching Profession (Productivity)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase productivity in the teaching profession; and what discussions he has had with the relevant teaching unions on this subject.

Mr. Edward Short: I have no specific proposals at present. Teachers' productivity cannot be precisely measured. Much of the work of the Department is, however, concerned with a wide range of measures to improve the effectiveness of teaching, and we are in frequent touch with the teachers' unions about these.
There is, however, an urgent need on the part of all concerned, for a more intensive use of the capital resources which have been devoted to education—particularly in the fields of further education and the universities.

Mr. Biffen: But since, in the prices and incomes policy, productivity is the centrepoint around which incomes negotiations must revolve, and as payments in the public sector will be regarded as of great significance by those engaged in private wage negotiations, would not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there was a case for his issuing an early statement saying in what directions he thought productivity could be increased and relating it particularly to such things as the use of aids to education, so that he could influence the pattern of wage negotiations throughout the public and private sectors?

Mr. Short: There is great scope for the use of further teaching aids, but

clearly the criteria in the White Paper are not applicable to the kind of job which teaching is. Nevertheless, I reiterate that the really urgent need in teaching is to make more use of all the capital resources which have been provided over the last 10 years or so, particularly in the case of the universities.

Mr. Marks: When my right hon. Friend is considering that, would he remember that the period when there was payment by results in education was a disastrous period for education?

Mr. Short: indicated assent.

Council for Education in World Citizenship

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the Exchequer grant to the Council for Education in World Citizenship.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Council for Education in World Citizenship is financed primarily by local education authorities and the other users of its services. I think it right that this should continue to be the source of its grants. I understand that it is the intention of the United Nations Association, to which the C.E.W.C. is affiliated, to increase the educational side of their work as a sequel to the recent drive for increased funds. My Department will be very glad to hear about these plans and to advise in any way it can.

Mr. Archer: I welcome that Answer, but would my right hon. Friend agree that, since we are spending over £2,000 million a year on defence because we have not achieved international understanding, another £100 million or so spent on trying to achieve it might be a good investment?

Miss Lee: There was an all-party dinner at 10 Downing Street in May attended by leaders of all parties and there is a general consensus, I think, that we want to do all we can for education in world citizenship.

Teaching Staff (Employment)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reductions in teaching staff he anticipates during 1968–69 as a result of recent cuts


in Government grants to local education authorities.

Miss Bacon: Government grants to local authorities have not been cut for 1968–69. It is important that within the education service local authorities should give priority to the employment of teachers, and present indications are that the numbers will rise.

Mr. Hunt: But is it not a fact that at least 15 local education authorities are planning to reduce their teaching staffs, particularly part-time teachers, as a direct result of the Government's financial squeeze upon them? What on earth is the point of the Government's campaign to coax more married women back to teaching if, at the same time, they threaten them with redundancy in this way?

Miss Bacon: I have seen reports that a number of local authorities are contemplating cutting down on part-time teachers, but these have not been confirmed by the authorities. On the other hand, 39 local authorities have asked for increases in their 1968–69 quota. Some people are being a little too pessimistic about this: all the indications are that the numbers employed will rise.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend assure us that all those who leave the colleges or institutes of education this coming July will be able to find employment?

Miss Bacon: Yes, I shall receive later this month a return for the October quota, which we shall increase, and I have every confidence that those leaving at the end of the summer term will find employment.

Sir E. Boyle: But can the right hon. Lady say how many authorities, since the January measures—including the curtailment of the rate support grant—are not recruiting up to their full quota, and how many are contemplating going slow on the recruitment of part-time teachers?

Miss Bacon: The cutting of the rate support grant is not for the current year. There will be an increase of 3 per cent. next year. These grants are not given to local education authorities but to local authorities, and the share of the education authorities must then be determined. I do not have the figures for the number who are not employing off-quota teachers, but the indications are that most local

authorities would like an increase in their quotas.

Swimming

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken during the last 12 months to encourage and develop swimming in schools under Government authority; and what plans he has for further action in this matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Denis Howell): There is much interest in swimming in the schools and we are making a small annual grant towards the administrative costs of the English Schools Swimming Association. In 1967, 19 swimming pools were completed in maintained schools, under the auspices of my Department. A further 16 are under construction this year.
In addition a number of pools have been provided by local authorities for general community purposes, including use by schoolchildren.

Mr. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive parts of that reply. Does he realise that, during the last year or two, there has been a great wave of interest in swimming as a means to health? Will he strike out in order to help in this respect?

Mr. Howell: My Department has no intention of being submerged by this wave. Indeed we intend to ride upon it to see that more swimming facilities are provided.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost has been?

Mr. Howell: Not without notice.

East Riding Schools (Sixth Forms)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of sixth forms in the East Riding of Yorkshire Local Education Authority; and how many pupils are in each of these sixth forms.

Miss Bacon: In January, 1967, there were 18 sixth forms in the East Riding with a total of 884 pupils. With permission, I will circulate the figures for each school in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wall: Do these figures indicate that there will be a relatively large number of sixth forms and a relatively small number of pupils, which would be difficult to staff and equip? Is there not a case for a sixth-form college in the centre of the county?

Miss Bacon: I know that the hon. Member has an interest in the sixth-form college at Beverley, but, as I have told him, the East Riding Education Authority produced a scheme without the sixth-form college. I know that there were two opinions about the matter, but we accepted the scheme put up to us by the East Riding Education Authority.

Following is the information:


East Riding of Yorkshire Education Authority—Schools with sixth forms


January, 1967


Name of School
Sixth form pupils


Beverley High School for Girls
110


Longcroft (mixed)
35


Bridlington High School for Girls
126


Hessle High School (mixed)
86


Withernsea High School (mixed)
78


South Humsley (mixed)
5


Driffield County (mixed)
31


Cottingham County (mixed)
32


South Holderness County (mixed)
23


Barlby County (mixed)
8


Woldgate County (mixed)
22


Hornsea County (mixed)
1


Willerby County (mixed
31


Howden County (mixed)
19


Fulford County (mixed)
6


Bridlington: Headlands County (mixed)
27


Bridlington Grammar (Boys)
140


Beverley Grammar (Boys)
104



884

Universities (French and German Post-Graduate Students)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek to make grants to encourage French and German post-graduate students to consider doing advanced work at British universities, rather than those of the United States of America.

Mr. Edward Short: My Department provides funds, under the Royal Society European Science Programme, to enable European post-doctoral fellows to work in this country. The British Council also offers scholarships to foreign students. Both schemes cover France and Germany.

Mr. Dalyell: Although I praise the work of the British Council to which my right hon. Friend referred, is it not extremely undesirable that so many postgraduates from France and Germany should automatically gravitate towards the United States, without considering the work which they could do at British universities? Does he see any helpful solution to this problem?

Mr. Short: I think that we are doing a great deal here, and my hon. Friend should not underestimate it. There is an additional factor, in that this country takes a very large number of Commonwealth students as well.

Computer Programming Schools

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek powers to recommend a standard syllabus for computer programming schools with the object of establishing a nationally recognised examination.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley William): No, Sir. This would not be appropriate, but I welcome the steps which are being taken on those lines by the co-ordinating committee recently established by the organisations chiefly concerned with computer education. My right hon. Friend is represented on this committee by an assessor.
My Department last week issued a bulletin giving full details of the extensive range of computer courses in technical colleges which lead to qualifications of a national character. I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Hunt: Does this bulletin refer to the private computer programming schools? Surely the hon. Lady is aware that many students find the certificates which they obtain at these private schools virtually useless in obtaining employment. Would not a national examination, such as I suggest, provide a univerally acceptable qualification which would help to weed out the inefficient and the more dubious of these schools?

Mrs. Williams: The bulletin is concerned with courses available at maintained schools, including colleges. With regard to independent schools, we have no power to impose a syllabus or to


require that that syllabus shall lead to a recognised examination. But the Board concerned with computer examinations is now drawing up a list of nationally recognised qualifications. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and also that some of these certificates are virtually worthless, but one can only draw the attention of would-be students to the fact that there are adequate and free courses available in the maintained system if they choose to take them.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Hunt: On a point of order. I beg to give notice——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a little too late. Mr. Dobson.

Mr. Dobson: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a wide divergence of courses in schools, some of them very shallow in scope and virtually useless as a means to achieving qualifications? Would she think again about this and encompass computer courses inside industry, for which there is still no recognition once the person concerned has finished the course?

Mrs. Williams: Consideration is being given to the point in the latter part of my hon. Friend's Question. I was, of course, referring to the colleges rather than schools. He will know that the setting up of the Council for National Academic Awards is leading to the recognition of high standards of qualifications in this respect, but this is a recent development.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hunt, point of order.

Mr. Hunt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) was rising to put a supplementary question.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Lady's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

School Places, Birmingham

Mr. Gurden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware that the parents of 600 children turned away from school on the opening day after Easter in Birmingham, owing to lack of places and lack of

teachers, were not informed well in advance about the situation in the schools; and if he will issue a circular to local education authorities advising them to give adequate notice in future cases of this kind.

Miss Bacon: It is up to the local authorities to make plans as far ahead as possible. I hope that all authorities will do their best to give parents notice as early as possible in cases of difficulty.

Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Lady ask her Cabinet colleagues to inform the House of the number of Commonwealth immigrant children who are entering these areas, so that local authorities can have advance notice of what the demand at these schools will be?

Miss Bacon: I understand that, although there has been an increase in the number of immigrant children coming into Birmingham in recent months, the majority were more than 5 years old and did not play a significant part in the recent difficulties.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in this instance, the Conservative leaders of the Education Committee attempted to blame the immigrant children for an administrative muddle purely of their own making?

Miss Bacon: As I have said, the immigrant children played very little part in this difficulty, which was more one of a shortage of teachers than one of buildings. But my right hon. Friend and I will be visiting Birmingham next week.

Sir E. Boyle: What proportion of these 600 were rising fives, as opposed to the children of statutory school age? With regard to immigrants, is the right hon. Lady aware that her factual answer is of considerable value and that many of us would deeply regret any attempts to inflame opinion on a matter in which the important thing is that the facts should be clear?

Miss Bacon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much. I could not say how many of these 600 were rising fives, but a number were, and they have now all been accommodated. It is also important that, in a big city like Birmingham, under-fives should not be taken in to school in one part of the city if that means that five year-olds in another part of the city cannot be taken in.

The Arts

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent, when allocating subsidies to the arts, he takes into account the foreign currency earnings of the institutions in question.

Miss Jennie Lee: Grants and guarantees for the arts are made by the Arts Council of Great Britain which takes all earnings into account.

Mr. Channon: Would the right hon. Lady agree that considerable foreign currency earnings are to be made from the arts? Is it not, therefore, important to give assistance whenever possible from this point of view, just as the Board of Trade helps firms in the export drive?

Miss Lee: The situation is that the excellence of our great companies and orchestras is such that they could spend their entire time abroad. We must, therefore, keep a balance in these matters.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgent need to give the National Youth Centre all the help that it can receive?

Miss Lee: Yes, Sir, and if my hon. Friend will table a Question on that topic I will answer it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Lady aware that much of what she is doing would be better appreciated if people understood that there is every potential for the entertainment industry generally to make a considerable contribution to the nation's foreign earnings?

Mr. Strauss: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that she has no control, and desires no control whatever, over the allocation of funds by the Arts Council and that that is solely the Council's responsibility and not hers?

Miss Lee: I have answered that question and made the position clear on many occasions. My right hon. Friend should remember, on the other hand, the need for a certain amount of flexibility. It is only natural that hon. Members should be interested in knowing whether we are going ahead with such things as a great opera house or national theatre. It is

equally right that, if hon. Members feel particularly strongly about a problem, they should raise it. I suggest, therefore, that the best course is for us to play this one by ear.

Sir C. Osborne: A fairly flat one, too.

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the proposed new official bureau to give assistance to local authorities in relation to the arts.

Miss Jennie Lee: The Arts Council does not have it in mind to set up a new bureau, but it does intend to commission a survey of the present position of the arts in the regions, with particular reference to the development of regional arts associations.

Mr. Channon: Can the right hon. Lady comment on the duties of Mr. Abercrombie when he retires from the Arts Council? He has been asked to commission a study. What are his terms of reference, who will be paying for it and can we have any other information on the subject?

Miss Lee: We are fortunate in that when the Secretary General, Mr. Abercrombie, retires, he will be undertaking a survey of what is happening in the regions. Only after receiving the report of that survey will the Arts Council be able to consider whether any fresh machinery is required. In the meantime, the Secretary General will be doing this work as an employee of the Arts Council.

Comprehensive Reorganisation, Bedfordshire

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received the new plan for Bedfordshire County Council for the reorganisation of secondary education on non-selective comprehensive lines; and whether he has approved this plan.

Mr. Edward Short: I have recently received from the local education authority the further information which was requested last autumn. I hope to reach a decision on the plan shortly.

Mr. Parkyn: In considering this plan, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind


that many Bedfordshire people believe that it will be possible to have a fully comprehensive and non-selective school system only if the two direct grant schools of the Harpur Trust are transferred to the local education authority?

Mr. Short: I understand that the local authority has now had consultations with the Harpur Trust. The information given to us by the authority is one of the factors which we shall be taking into account in reaching a decision.

Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, would ha agree that we very much hope that the relationship with the direct grant schools will be decided by negotiation? Secondly, is it not a fact that this plan is based on middle schools and assumes the money for the raising of the school leaving age? In view of the postponement of the raising of the school leaving age, must not this plan also be subject to some postponement?

Mr. Short: We have asked the local authority for further information. The authority has had discussions with the Harpur Trust in Bedfordshire and, as I say, this is one of the factors which we shall be taking into account in reaching a decision on the matter.

Part-time Teachers (Superannuation)

Sir E. Boyle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to introduce a superannuation scheme for part-time teachers in institutions of further education.

Mr. Edward Short: I have not yet received any recommendations from the Working Party on Superannuation Arrangements for Part-time Teachers about the introduction of a scheme for teachers in further education establishments. I understand that the Committee has some proposals under consideration and is seeking the views of a number of local education authorities on the difficult administrative issues involved.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentle-man aware of the widespread hope that it will soon be possible to make progress on this issue and that, just as there was great feeling about a scheme for those teaching part-time—half-time or more—

in the schools, so there is great hope in the world of further education that progress will be made on this issue?

Mr. Short: I, too, hope for that, but we must wait until the Committee has made its recommendations, and then we will see what can be done.

Sixth-Form Curricula

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Schools Council and Dainton proposals for the future of the sixth-form curriculum.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I hope that much will come of a recommendation in the Report of the recent Dainton inquiry that more boys and girls should be encouraged to study for careers in science and technology. My right hon. Friend is now awaiting the views of a number of bodies including the Schools Council, whose views are expected in June. They will take account of the relevant recommendations in the Report when discussing with the universities and other bodies possible patterns of sixth-form curricula and examinations.

Mr. Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is there not now some urgency about this matter, since the Schools Council and Dainton recommendations are reconcilable and since there is a great desire in the schools to reform their sixth form curricula, yet there is not certainty about the direction in which they should move forward?

Mrs. Williams: I recognise the need for more speed in view of the uncertainty that exists in schools. My hon. Friend will recognise that a major change in the whole structure of education is being proposed here, with the suggestion that specialisation in secondary schools at an early age should be abandoned. I assure him that the Schools Council will be bearing in mind the Dainton recommendations in making its suggestions in June.

Mr. Ridsdale: If we wish to encourage science in sixth forms what are we doing to encourage science teachers? Is the hon. Lady aware of the grave shortage of science teachers? Would she consider getting some secondment from industry?

Mrs. Williams: We are aware of this and the hon. Gentleman may like to know that the first three courses for science teachers returning for refresher in-service courses in universities are being started as an experiment this summer. We hope to widen the experiment later.

Polytechnics

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schemes for polytechnics he has now approved; and when he will have made decisions about all the schemes which he has invited local education authorities to submit.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My right hon. Friend expects to be able soon to announce decisions on most of the 20 schemes that have been submitted. The timing on the remaining schemes must depend on when they are submitted by the authorities concerned.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware of the impression that the Government are backpedalling somewhat in their previous enthusiasm to get these polytechnics off the ground? Will she give an assurance that this is not so?

Mrs. Williams: There is no question whatever of the Government backpedalling on this. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the two important factors which arise. The first is that we wish to consult the professional associations involved, and particularly those of teachers in colleges of further education; it would be wrong to go ahead until they feel that they have had ample opportunity to put their views forward. The second is that these schemes must be fully liberal, and to achieve this there must inevitably be a great deal of consultation with the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Molloy: Could my hon. Friend say whether if reasonable evidence could be provided in regard to the London area, where polytechnics have already been established, there might be a need for some amendment of the original decisions?

Mrs. Williams: We are open to suggestions for amending schemes until the point when they are designated. There are, from the point of view of London, quite particular difficulties about the number of polytechnic schemes.

Youth Service Building Programme

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the cuts in expenditure on the Youth Service, and in particular on the effect of the reduction in grant aid on the Youth Service building programme in the Bournemouth area.

Mr. Denis Howell: A Youth Service building programme of £3·8 million has been allocated for England and Wales in 1968–69; it includes £27,160 for a Bournemouth project.

Sir J. Eden: Would the Minister kindly answer the Question? To what extent is this a reduction on the original figure and, if there has been a reduction, when does he expect it to be made good?

Mr. Howell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not know that last year's building programme amounted to £4·8 million, but on previous occasions this figure has been given.

Sir J. Eden: Answer the Question.

Mr. Howell: I have. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would like to know the situation in relation to the Bournemouth area.

Sir J. Eden: On a point of order. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory Answer of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Schools (Damage and Theft)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the total losses, due to damage and theft, respectively, caused by those who broke into schools in England and Wales during each of the past three years; and what recommendations he has made to local education authorities regarding preventive measures.

Miss Bacon: We have made no such estimates and preventive measures are a matter for the local education authorities.

Mr. Brooks: Is it not somewhat extraordinary that no attempt has been made to evaluate this serious problem at local


level? As an interim measure, pending such an evaluation, would my right hon. Friend consider recommending local education authorities to at least install burglar alarms in headmasters' studies?

Miss Bacon: It is up to local education authorities to take decisions of this sort. They know their areas and are able to authorise installations of this type. If a local authority wished to incorporate such a burglar alarm system in a school—provided that the cost of the building was not exceeded—we would agree. This is a matter which must be left to local authorities.

Student Grants

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will circularise local education authorities advising them not to make student grants conditional on promises of the students' future behaviour.

Mr. Edward Short: I see no reason to do so. The conditions governing the payment of duty awards—as opposed to discretionary awards—are set out in statutory regulations.

Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister of State yesterday deplored action by local authorities which assumed behaviour on the part of students? Does he accept that if students break the law they should be dealt with like other people, and that if they offend against their universities or student bodies, those bodies should deal with them and not local authorities?

Mr. Short: I remind my hon. Friend that Statutory Regulation No. 22(3) states:
If, after consultation with the academic authorities, an authority is satisfied that the holder of an award has shown himself by his conduct to be unfitted to hold it, it may terminate the award or suspend it.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Minister agree that the taxpayer and ratepayer should not be expected to give a subvention to disorderly behaviour and student hooliganism where it exists in a minority of cases?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir, but there is a good deal more to it than that. I was asked a specific Question and I have answered it. If, now, the hon. Gentleman raises

a much wider question, then he must accept that there is a lot more to it than he may think. Excess in student protests is one thing. To try to stop every type of student protest is a very different matter. There are two factors involved here. The first is the terrible conflicts in society itself. Students would be abnormal if they were not acutely sensitive to these. The second is the fact that many of our universities still do not give students a part in running their own affairs. The concept of a university is that it should be a self-governing body of students, but a great body of the students are not at present able to take part in the governing of their universities.

Mr. Shinwell: Why all this fuss about these young people kicking up a row now and again? Are they making any more of a nuisance of themselves than the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton)?

Sir G. Nabarro: Kidderminster?

Mr. Shinwell: I should have said the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).

Sir E. Boyle: Ignoring the momentary lapse of memory on the part of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that his Answer about refusing to circularise will meet with wide approval in House and that, for the rest, many hon. Members would probably prefer this matter to be left where the Minister and I left it after Question Time yesterday?

Primary Schools, Bedford

Mr. Brian Parkyn: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary schools in Bedford have over 50 per cent. non-English born pupils.

Miss Bacon: Six, Sir. The pupils include children born outside the British Isles whose parents were of overseas origin and children born in the United Kingdom whose parents came here as immigrants within the previous 10 years.

Mr. Parkyn: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very interesting reply, may I ask her to assure the House that in trying to provide special help for these schools, priority will be given to


those which have an extremely high ratio compared with the normal ratio rather than treating all schools with more than one-third non-English pupils on an equal basis?

Miss Bacon: I am not sure that I follow the precise point my hon. Friend has in mind. I assure him that we want to help all schools, whether the percentage is below or above 30 per cent. One reason why my right hon. Friend and I are visiting schools is to see how this rule is working.

Student Teachers (Infant Training Courses)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to attract a bigger proportion of student teachers to enter infant training courses.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The colleges of education are devoting a higher proportion of their greatly expanded capacity to the training of teachers of infants. Over the last five years the colleges' annual intake of students has increased from 17,000 to 36,000 and the numbers entering courses which equip them to teach infants have risen from 5,000 to 12,000.

Mr. Hill: Is this not still well below the level needed to make up the shortage of infant teachers? Would it not be well to take a new look at the teacher courses, both at a high and a lower academic level, with a view to encouraging more places to be provided in colleges and getting more girls of different academic attainment to fill them?

Mrs. Williams: At the present time the situation is that the number of infant teachers coming out of the college is, or should soon be, adequate to meet the needs of the children, but the hon. Member will appreciate that one of the great difficulties is the very heavy wastage among young women teachers. With the number of authorities moving over to middle schools, courses which concentrate entirely on infant work for the five-to seven-year-olds may not be as suitable as infant-junior courses which enable authorities to reorganise on middle school lines.

Mrs. Renée Short: What steps are being taken to train more nursery school

teachers and so to implement the Plowden Committee's Report?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that at present a nursery class requires a full-time qualified infant teacher. I understand that there has not yet been agreement in the profession on the proposals of the Plowden Committee on the rather different qualifications for some nursery school assistant teachers.

Independent Boarding Schools

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will revise Rule 16, in view of his policy of discontinuing the registration of independent boarding schools which are not recognised as efficient.

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. These rules are very general in character and it is the interpretation of terms in them, such as "suitable", "satisfactory", "efficient", which matters. I do not intend that the new policy shall be applied inflexibly.

Mr. Turton: Does not this rule specifically state that it is for conferring
a special mark of the Secretary of States's approval
and does not attempt to cover the small educational establishments? Is it not, therefore, ill-designed for laying down minimum standards and does not it require revision?

Mr. Short: I gave the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite the assurance last week that I want to deal with this matter in a flexible way. He is showing great concern about the proprietors of these schools, but we have to consider the children in these schools as well. I do not think hon. Members opposite would send their horses to an unqualified vet, or put them in an inadequate stable, but they are willing to do this with their children. We have to show some concern for the children in these schools.

Sir E. Boyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will strike some of us as a little unfair and one-sided? My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is showing a perfectly proper concern for proprietors who do mind about educational standards. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this point again?

Mr. Short: I understand the point of view of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). I know his concern and I do not want to be unfair to him, but hon. Members opposite have gone on about this for quite a long time. I have given them an assurance in explicit terms that I will deal with the matter in a careful and flexible way. I hope that they will accept that.

Children (Admission to School)

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children in England and Wales who had attained the statutory age for school attendance have been refused admission to school during the present term; and if he will indicate the areas in which this has happened most.

Miss Bacon: This information is not available. I know that a few authorities have had difficulty recently, among them, Ealing, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is indeed a problem in some parts of the country? Will she bear in mind that to attend to this end of the educational scale is just as important as the extension of the school leaving age?

Miss Bacon: Yes, I know this is extremely important. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, perhaps he will let me know.

Mr. Gurden: Will the Minister of State now answer my earlier question? Will she ask her colleagues to inform her of the number of immigrant children coming to the country so that the load on local authorities may be established?

Miss Bacon: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Lady now ask her colleagues to tell her how many immigrant children are coming to the country so that she can tell the local authorities the load to expect in the schools?

Miss Bacon: We know how many immigrant children come into the country but, as I explained to the hon. Member when I answered his question, the difficul-

ties he had in mind in Birmingham were not produced by the immigrant children but by the general shortage of places.

Nursery Classes

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have instituted nursery classes consisting of several groups of children in charge of nursery assistants, but supervised by a trained infant teacher, as recommended in the Plowden Report.

Miss Bacon: I am not aware of any such arrangement.

Mr. Hill: Is not this recommendation so crucial to the making of any progress in this most important sector of education that it is highly desirable that the Department should encourage such an experiment to be carried out to see whether the proposal works in practice?

Miss Bacon: I agree with the hon. Member that this is very important, but, as he will recognise, I have had many Questions this afternoon about the shortage of teachers for those who have attained the age of five. When we overcome those difficulties we should like to make a start in the educational priority areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister what further arrangements he is now making to resume negotiations for a settlement of Rhodesian problems.

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 25th April and 7th May.—[Vol. 763, c. 481; Vol. 764, c. 212.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Has the Prime Minister observed the continuing decline of British financial and economic influence throughout Africa, the latest example of which is now reported of £11 million of economic aid to Malawi from South Africa, all of which should have been a British province? Will he not take early


steps, therefore, to reopen negotiations before we lose all our African trade?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be delighted to know how much our trade with African countries north of the Zambesi has increased since U.D.I. Although he will recognise the difficulties of making the resources available, I take note of his desire for an increase in the aid programme for Commonwealth countries in Africa. So far as negotiations with Rhodesia are concerned, he will be aware of recent statements by Mr. Smith in which he not only refused any idea of supporting majority rule in any foreseeable time, but in which he said that he has never believed in it.

Mr. Wall: Has the Prime Minister rejected the opportunities offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) for reaching a compromise? Is he planning an economic war of attrition designed to create violence among unemployed Africans?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what was said in recent debates. When he studies the words of Mr. Smith, the hon. Member will realise that there never was a suggestion of compromise on the part of the régime which fitted in with the six principles. Anything of that kind of agreement would not, I hope, be accepted by most hon. Members.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend think of any explanation for the strikingly different attitude taken by many Conservatives towards immigrants in this country and that adopted towards immigrants in Rhodesia?

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister give us a White Paper setting out the terms of the apartheid-type legislation which the Smith régime has recently put into force?

The Prime Minister: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to consider whether more information should be given, but my right hon. Friend will remember that in the debate on Rhodesia recently I went at some length into the intensification of apartheid and denial of educational opportunity being practised by the
régime.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the conduct of relations with Rhodesia through Press statements and the sort of statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made is totally absurd? This is a serious matter, not a question of what Mr. Smith is reported to have said to newspapers, but a question of the negotiations which should be undertaken with Mr. Smith.

The Prime Minister: There have been plenty of opportunities and the most recent was the visit of my right hon. Friend to Salisbury at the end of last year. We have no reason at all now to accept that there was any genuine desire on the part of Mr. Smith, or if there were, that he was allowed to further those desires. His most recent statements make this crystal clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Prime Minister, following the reallocation of responsibilities for Ministers and Departments concerned with prices, incomes, productivity, labour, economic affairs and associated matters, to what extent it remains his policy to be directly concerned with the work of the Department of Economic Affairs.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers I gave to Questions on 11th April—[Vol. 762, c. 1585.]

Sir G. Nabarro: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that there is continuing confusion as to his personal responsibility for economic and financial affairs? Does he recall that, only yesterday, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) told him that the trade unions were about to desert the Labour Party? In these circumstances, will he not go to the helm at once and restore order in his own party?

The Prime Minister: Recognising the hon. Gentleman's consistent record for party loyalty over the past three or four weeks, should I consider that the situation called for any action on my part, I should not necessarily come to him for advice about it.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am giving it.

The Prime Minister: I gather that it was being given to me, but I was not accepting it.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, about alleged confusion, the answer is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Christopher Price: Do not recent mergers point to the great success of the Government's industrial and economic policy, but will my right hon. Friend make sure that there is a particular Minister directly responsible for dealing with the grave injustices which can occur when particular mergers take place, for example, the redundancies announced yesterday at Witton?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The House will have noted the great success, for example, of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—which, of course, was opposed by hon. Members opposite when it was set up.
I have on previous occasions expressed my concern about the way in which labour relations following closures after mergers have sometimes been handled, for example, in the Woolwich area. I have only just seen today the account to which my hon. Friend refers regarding the forthcoming redundancies in the Birmingham area. I shall certainly discuss this with my right hon. Friends and see that my hon. Friend is brought into the picture.

Mr. Heath: When will the Prices and Incomes Bill be published, and will it contain all the proposals in the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: I expect that it will be published next week. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time to study it and form his view about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (DEPUTY)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister which Minister now acts as deputy Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member must be well aware of the Answer I gave on 25th April to virtually the same Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 763, c. 77.]

Mr. Marten: But does the Prime Minister recall that in that reply he said that there were no standing arrangements in force for this office? Is not the country entitled to know, as a matter of confidence in the Government, who acts as Prime Minister of this country when the Prime Minister himself is unable to be at his duties? Could he name somebody?

The Prime Minister: In accordance with long-standing practice, if I were out of the country on public business, I should nominate a deputy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The House should be well aware that I should nominate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in those circumstances.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Could my right hon. Friend tell us which shadow Minister now acts as deputy Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the position of deputy Prime Minister one which is, fortunately, not known to our constitution, which provides only far an alternative Prime Minister in the person of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and in my Answer on 25th April I said that there was no such known office as that of deputy Prime Minister. Arrangements are made ad hoc when, for any reason, the Prime Minister is not able to be present at Cabinet and similar meetings. I leave to hon. and right hon. Members opposite questions about the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT DE GAULLE

Mr. Brooks: asked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President de Gaulle to visit London for discussions on the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 2nd April to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig).—[Vol. 762, c. 74.]

Mr. Brooks: Does not my right hon. Friend deprecate the presence of more gall than cordial in the entente, and on this, the anniversary of the victory in


Europe, would he not consider it appropriate to stress the immense dangers to European collective security and democracy in any further deterioration of Anglo-French relations and, in particular, in failure to pursue a common policy regarding Germany's nuclear rôle?

The Prime Minister: Our bilateral relations with France have been perfectly cordial over the last year. The real difficulty has been the attitude of the French Government regarding the British application for entry into the E.E.C. and the other Community organisations. This does place some strain on us. By far the greatest and most serious consequences of it are not just for us or for France but for Europe as a whole and for the hopes of those who want to close the technological gap between Europe as a whole, including Britain, and the other side of the Atlantic.
On the question of proliferation of nuclear weapons and Germany's position, I have nothing to add to the many statements which have been made.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not the Prime Minister realise that association on matters to do with technology does not mean that we ought to sign the Treaty of Rome?

The Prime Minister: What I realise and have said many times—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree—is that for a proper fulfilment of what can be done in technological co-operation we need a single market. With the size and expense of the research and production programmes called for nowadays, not many firms will go as far as they could if they were not limited in the size of their market. That is why technological cooperation and integration involve market integration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he had when in the United States of America about the appointment of a successor to the present head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why does not the Prime Minister press for a British commander to

succeed the present Supreme Allied Commander in Europe? Would it not be a reminder to our political friends and others not so friendly that we have a deep commitment to the defence of Europe and also to the E.E.C. itself?

The Prime Minister: I think that our deep commitment to the defence of Europe is accepted by all our friends and even by those who may be, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, less friendly. I do not think that that would be either increased or derogated from by any pressure for a British officer. When the vacancy occurs, we shall enter into discussions with our allies in the normal way.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Lord President of the Council at Birmingham about devaluation on 28th January represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: While sympathising with the hon. and learned Member, who has so far deferred this Question four times in the hope of an oral answer, I would draw his attention to the fact that, in the interval since he first tabled it, I have answered six Questions and three supplementaries, including one from the hon. and learned Member, on this speech of my right hon. Friend. If the hon. and learned Member would care to study these answers, may I refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th January, 20th February, 5th March, 7th March, and 12th March.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Prime Minister now say whether devaluation, the January measures or the Budget was the most giant of the three "giant strides towards Socialism"—and what does the deputy Leader think about it?

The Prime Minister: I think that I answered that supplementary question earlier. I cannot now remember whether it was on 30th January, 20th February, 5th, 7th or 12th March, but I shall look it up and inform the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am, however, delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman is so obsessed with my right hon. Friend's speeches that he obviously lives with them


beside his bed. He must be getting a lot of instruction from them.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the Prime Minister a question on this which has not been asked before? Will he give an assurance to the House and the country that there is not likely to be another devaluation this year?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—and the whole House will join in that. The extent to which we can make an active success of the opportunities available to us as a result of devaluation will depend upon more than one factor. Many exporters are now getting orders on a very big scale, even if some are showing disappointing results and there is not the progress in import replacement that we should all like. But our success in turning these things into a really massive surplus will depend on the full co-operation of this House and both sides of industry on a whole range of measures, some of which are unpopular and, because of that, can be misused politically by those who do not agree with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALUMINIUM SMELTERS

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when he intends to make a statement on the siting and fuelling of the projected aluminium smelters.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 24th April to Questions by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).—[Vol. 763, c. 202.]

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say at this juncture whether a statement will be made in the next fortnight, as the talks with our E.F.T.A. parners seem to be either concluded or shortly to be concluded? Further, is it still the Government's intention to site all these aluminium smelters, however many there might be, in development areas?

The Prime Minister: I have been in day-to-day touch with this problem and I have had full reports on the negotiations.
My hon. Friend will understand our disappointment at not being able to give an answer earlier, but the delay arises not not so much from our discussions with E.F.T.A. as from the very detailed negotiations with the three firms with which we have been in negotiation regarding proposals to build all three in development areas. There are still some difficulties to be sewn up. The fact that there are three and we want to be fair as between the three, and the need to be extremely careful about commitments with regard to Government expenditure or Government assistance on the projects, are the reason why the matter has been delayed longer than I should have wanted.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that one of the principal obstacles to his making a statement is the opposition of the majority of our E.F.T.A. partners to certain aspects of the proposals, and that as things stand today his only ally in the matter is Portugal?

The Prime Minister: It would not be particularly helpful to talk about discussions now going on in the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council. There have been difficulties here, and there are some views expressed by some of our E.F.T.A. partners on the matter with which we do not agree. The main reason for the delay—and I had hoped that we could have an announcement even before Easter—is the reason I have given: not so much discussions with our E.F.T.A. partners as detailed and intricate negotiations which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been carrying out with the three firms.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. The Prime Minister commented adversely just now on the fact that he had to answer Questions from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) which corresponded closely to a number of Questions he had been asked before. If the Prime Minister answered the Questions when they were first put to him the need for this would not arise.

Mr. Speaker: Very ingenious, but not a point of order.

SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT)

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Sir Alec Douglas-Home (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the confiscation of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport at Heathrow on Tuesday.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): Sir Frederick Crawford's passport was impounded in accordance with the policy explained in the first paragraph of the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Commonwealth Secretary on 25th January, 1966.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is an abrupt and most unsatisfactory answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official of his Department gave Sir Frederick the reason for taking away his passport that he was seen in the company of Rhodesian Ministers at a Rhodesian trade fair? Is he aware that Sir Frederick has been president of the trade fair for six years, but during that time has come constantly to this country, and since U.D.I.?
Will the Minister therefore say what change there has been which justifies the confiscation of Sir Frederick's passport? What redress has Sir Frederick against this very arbitrary judgment? If the reason is industrial, is the Minister aware that nickel is not on the list of items to which mandatory sanctions at present apply? Again, if the reason is industrial, is it the Government's policy to take away the passports of any British chairman or director associated with a foreign company or a company in South Africa which has incidental trade with Rhodesia?
Is it, for example, that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take away the passports of the chairmen or directors of oil companies which import oil into South Africa which subsequently goes to Rhodesia? Will he give us an answer to some of these specific questions?

Mr. George Thomson: In answer to the two main points of the right hon. Gentleman's very long supplementary question, first, with regard to the reasons for impounding the passport, I think that the House will realise that it is not in the

public interest to disclose the information——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise does not help at all.

Mr. Thomson: It is not in the public interest to disclose information on which decisions in these cases are taken, but I am satisfied——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.

Mr. Thomson: I hope that the House will at least listen to what I have to say, and then if hon. Members disagree with it I shall be very happy to try to answer their questions. I am satisfied that Sir Frederick Crawford's conduct and activities since U.D.I. have been such as to bring him within the class of people referred to in the statement of January, 1966.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second main point, Sir Frederick Crawford has been president of the trade fair, as the right hon. Gentleman said, for about six years. Last year, as president of the fair, he acted as host to the gentleman, Mr. Dupont, who purports to be the representative of the Crown in Rhodesia. I think that in many parts of the House hon. Members will feel that Sir Frederick Crawford, with his distinguished record of allegiance to the Crown in the past, should not, under those circumstances, have acted in that way.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of the rights of an individual——

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to shout "Fascists" in this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything like that.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Sir Alec Douglas-Home rose——

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Fascists.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order. I take it that you have now heard the use of that word, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right in his surmise that I have heard


it. It is in order for hon. Members to use words which they would not use about an individual about a group of Members in the House. Even so, I deplore them.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that the evidence on which he has taken away Sir Frederick Crawford's passport is simply that he was host, as president, at the trade fair in Salisbury?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I am not. I was seeking to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and if his supporters will give me a little silence I can perhaps clarify the matter. I said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the reasons for impounding the passport. But I am satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of Britain, which it is the duty of both sides of the House to uphold, to allow this gentleman to travel around to other countries.
With regard to the trade fair, I answered a specific question asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I notice that Sir Frederick is reported as saying that he always tries to see both sides of moral and political questions. In the case of a rebellion against the Crown it should be quite clear to any former public servant which side of the question should prevail.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for a Government who talk of legality, the imposition of arbitrary punishment without trial comes ill, and that liberal opinion in South Africa will be astonished that the representative of Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, the strongest influence for liberalism in South Africa, should have been selected for this arbitrary punishment?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. and learned Friend is under a misapprehension. There is no punishment in this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Passports, as my hon. and learned Friend knows better than many hon. Members, are issued under the prerogative and in the discretion of the Crown. What the Government must do is to decide whether it is in the interests of Britain that a particular individual should be allowed to travel around to other countries. Under the law as it stands Sir Frederick Crawford is perfectly

entitled to stay here for as long as he likes, but what he is not entitled to do is to travel to other countries where we consider it is against the public interest.

Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State must realise that he is evading the main points at issue by his last statement. To impound the passport of a man with the distinction of Sir Frededick Crawford is not only immensely damaging to him and his reputation, but damaging to him in his private and business capacity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Sir Frederick was told that the reason for the withdrawal was that he had acted as host at the trade fair to members of Mr. Smith's Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated this, thereby confirming it, and at the same time is refusing to announce the matters which he says it is in the public interest to withhold.
This is not justifiable in these circumstances. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give a reason which will appear to the House to be fair and justifiable, the country can only conclude that this is a nasty, petty, spiteful, arbitrary act.

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. There is no spite or pettiness or vindictiveness in this. Sir Frederick Crawford is in receipt of the pension to which he is entitled as a former colonial Governor and that pension is still being paid to him. But I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, however much he disagrees with our decision, will at least allow the House to be clear about the reasons for it. [Interruption.] The Commonwealth Office—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to the answer.

Mr. Thomson: The Commonwealth Office did not state yesterday to Sir Frederick, in a long interview with him, that the reason for impounding his passport was his presence as president of the trade fair. Indeed, the situation is that he, apparently feeling on the defensive about this, volunteered the information as to his presidency of the trade fair as an explanation of his association with Mr. Dupont. [Interruption.] I am seeking specifically to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the trade fair and I am bound to say that in my view it is quite wrong for a former


colonial Governor, with a distinguished record in the past of allegiance to the Crown, to set an example in this case by acting as host to a usurper of the Crown's functions in Rhodesia. I should be interested to hear the personal views of right hon. Gentlemen opposite about that.
But these were not the reasons on which we impounded the passport. It is not the practice, as right hon. Members opposite know, to give reasons for impounding a passport. The decision in this case was taken by my predecessor, Lord Aylestone, as far back as June last year, but I have been carefully over the papers in this matter since it was raised with me yesterday evening and I am taking this decision on my responsibility. I am satisfied, having studied the papers, that it would not be in the interests of Britain for Sir Frederick Crawford to be given our permission to travel to other countries.

Mr. Richard: Can my right hon. Friend go a little further and confirm that the reason the passport was impounded is that, in the opinion of the Government, there are reasonable grounds for believing that this gentleman's activities have served to assist the régime in Rhodesia? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, accept from me that we on this side, while recognising that this is a very grave step to take, feel that, though regrettable, it is right?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must resist the temptation he offers me, just as I resisted it from right hon. Members opposite, to go into the reasons.

Mr. Wall: What right of appeal——

Mr Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall seek to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that one does not give notice in that way.

Mr. Wall: What right of appeal has an individual against the arbitrary action of the Executive in this situation? Is not this action low compared with even the lowest standards of the most unpopular Government in living memory?

Mr. Thomson: I fully expected the hon. Gentleman to take that view, but I am surprised that he should feel so heated at this stage because what has been done is the implementation of a decision announced to the House on 25th January, 1966.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the warmest support of the country for this action, which will make sure that British citizens, however distinguished, understand that they must loyally help in applying sanctions?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Secretary of State explain to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) that there was once a time in this country when a man was innocent until proved guilty? Will he also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the refusal to publish any reasons, however much this may be said to be in the public interest, is to reduce this country to the level of a police State?

Mr. Manuel: A bunch of traitors you are.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel)—[Interruption]——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must hear the point of order being put to me.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order. I heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire shout to right hon. and hon. Members on this side, "A bunch of traitors you are". If we are to debate in peace and quiet, may we ask for the protection of the Chair?

Mr. Roebuck: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the régime in Rhodesia is illegal and in rebellion against the Crown, that those who support it are guilty of sedition, and that sedition is not allowed in this House under Standing Orders?

Mr. Speaker: I ruled earlier that unpleasant epithets hurled at groups of Members in the House as distinct from individuals may be in order, but that I deprecate them equally from both sides.

Mr. Thomson: I understand the very deep feelings of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) about this matter, but I remind him that the authority under which this passport was impounded has been exercised under the prerogative by successive Governments. He is a former Minister of the Crown and knows that perfectly well.
I assure the House that this action is only taken in rare circumstances and after very careful consideration indeed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a gibe about a police State. After his magnificent defence of liberal tradition in a recent debate, I would have thought that he would feel that a country like this, which exercises this exceptional action only in the rarest cases, might be supported in its efforts to end what is undoubtedly a police State in Rhodesia.

Mr. Shinwell: Could we not more readily appreciate the passion exhibited by some right hon and hon. Members opposite if they had protested as vigorously against the detention of persons in Rhodesia and other subversive activities indulged in by the Rhodesian authorities, which coincide more with the description of a police State than does the reference of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

Mr. Thomson: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. It occurs to me that I am meeting a great deal more passion and heat from the benches opposite than I have ever had on a number of issues of the kind my right hon. Friend has referred to.
I can only say in this case that there have been other cases of this kind, but I hope that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong to apply a different standard to a man of public eminence, however distinguished his past services, because he has the necessary connections to enable him to press his case.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, does he know Sir Frederick Crawford personally and well, as I do? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman turn up the record of the Uganda Independence Conference, held when I was Secretary of State and Sir Frederick was Governor, and read Sir

Frederick's speech, which was one of the noblest affirmations of the need for African advance that I have ever listened to?

Mr. Thomson: First, I do not have the advantage of personal acquaintance with Sir Frederick Crawford. Secondly, I was not seeking to suggest that he was against African advance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I sought to pay tribute to his past distinguished service. But that does not excuse him from his present position in Rhodesia.

Sir Dingle Foot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on this side of the House entirely share the admiration which is felt for Sir Frederick Crawford for his record, particularly in Uganda? None the less, is he aware that we share the view of my right hon. Friend, that those who give, or appear to give, aid and comfort to the rebel régime cannot expect to travel freely on British passports?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Commonwealth Secretary whether it is not a fact that this is not the first case under the procedure agreed by this House when a passport has been withdrawn? If so, is it not the case that no different treatment should be meted out to a distinguished public servant than to anyone else, and that there is a case for arguing that his standard of conduct should be greater than anyone else's? May I ask whether it would not be in the public interest to give the reasons for the withdrawal of the passport, simply because I believe that these reasons might well serve as a warning to other persons engaged in similar activities?

Mr. Thomson: I am bound to resist any temptation to give reasons in a case like this. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that this will reassure the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House might wait before it says "No", to decide whether the reassurance is adequate. It may decide that it is not, but I hope that it will listen.
There have so far been four cases in the last 12 months of action taken in this country against holders of United Kingdom passports. There might be other categories of people acted against


in other countries, holding United Kingdom passports, but I could not, without notice, give that information to the House. There have only been the four cases in the last 12 months of action taken, and I hope that this will reassure the House that action is not taken lightly.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Sir Frederick has ever unequivocally subscribed to the Crown, and condemned the illegal régime? Should not the benefits of a British passport be available only to those who oppose the illegal régime in Salisbury?

Mr. Thomson: My hon. Friend's question is presumably not directed to the grounds on which this action has been taken, and of which I refuse to give details. Sir Frederick Crawford has, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite know, represented the Queen with great distinction in at least two Colonial Territories in the past. It is true, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, that in his case any action which gives an aura of respectability to Mr. Dupont is very much to be deplored.
I have noticed that other distinguished representatives, judges and soldiers of the Armed Services, for instance, have all sought to avoid taking part in any public ceremonies involving Mr. Dupont. Sir Frederick Crawford not only acted as host to him a year ago, but only a few days ago acted in the same capacity.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he has said there have been only four such cases in the last year, in the last week there has been an instance of a man who has never been a supporter of the régime but who bears the identical name of a Minister in that régime, and who has been refused renewal of his passport, with no reason given? This is manifestly an error. What safeguard, what appeal, have individuals against arbitrary and cruel actions of this kind?

Mr. Thomson: I am very anxious indeed to avoid any miscarriage of justice in cases like this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. Member has not already passed to me details of the case, I would be glad to have them, and will certainly investigate it thoroughly.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the yearly statistics since the war, showing how many passports have been taken back from British citizens, and in how many cases reasons have been given in those years?

Mr. Thomson: To the best of my knowledge reasons have never been given, and were never given by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were members of their Government.

Mr. Peyton: Does the right hon. Gentleman find it easy to contemplate an action on the part of the Government more mean, petty and so characteristic?

Mr. Thomson: I would feel much more sympathy with the hon. Member if he had used the words "mean, petty and spiteful" about many of the actions of the illegal régime in Rhodesia, in the constant debates that we have had in this House.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? I wish to make an application for leave to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. Do I do so now, or after Business questions?

Mr. Speaker: The moment to do so is after Business questions.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to persist, without reason given, without the opportunity of redress, without any right of public or judicial investigation, to accord this treatment and put this slur on this gentleman? If that be so, is it not a gross violation of the rule of law and of the constitutional principles which we follow in this House?

Mr. Thomson: Sir Frederick Crawford had a long interview with an official of my office yesterday. I am certainly ready to hear any further representations that he may wish to make. They will be considered very carefully, but I repeat that the action that has been taken is no different from the action taken by Governments of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so distinguished a member.

Mr. Lipton: Is there not one reason for the passion displayed by hon. Members opposite—the fact that this gentleman, whose case we are now discussing, happens to be an old Etonian?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the day. Mr. Heath. Business Question.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. I tried to catch your eye at an earlier stage, Mr. Speaker. This House has an interest in this matter. At an earlier stage, the Commonwealth Secretary said that it was his view that this gentleman—and I took his words down—should not be given permission to travel to other countries. Has it not always been one of the duties of this House to preserve the rights of the citizen?
The right hon. Gentleman has made a clear mis-statement, I hope unintentionally, of what is the legal right of every citizen—he has the Attorney-General on his left—which is that at all times, having given some form of identification only, he shall have the right to enter and leave this country at any time that he so wishes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a point about which we are arguing. It is not a point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 13TH MAY—Supply [21st Allotted Day]:

Debate on Tourism, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and of the Firearms Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

Prayer on the Fish and Meat Spread-able Products Regulations.

TUESDAY, 14TH MAY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Agriculture, in Session 1966–67 and the relevant Departmental Observations.

Motion on Members' Travel.

Third Reading of the Water Resources Bill.

Prayer on the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations.

WEDNESDAY, 15TH MAY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]:

Debate on the T.A.V.R.III, on an Opposition Motion until 7 o'clock and thereafter on the Problems of the Fishing Industry, on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill [Lords] and of the Firearms Bill [Lords].

THURSDAY, 16TH MAY—Second Reading of the Hovercraft Bill.

Motion on the Immunities and Privileges Order.
Procedure Motion on Questions.

FRIDAY, 17TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 20TH MAY—The proposed business will be:

Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Subject to progress of business, we shall propose that the House should rise for the Whitsun Adjournment on Friday, 31st May, until Tuesday, 11th June.

Mr. Heath: There has still been no statement about Service pay. Can the Leader of the House tell us when a statement will be made? Secondly, if the Prices and Incomes Bill is published next week, as the Prime Minister earlier said that it would be, when is it proposed to have Second Reading, because he has given us an assurance that there will be plenty of time to study it?

Mr. Peart: On the question of Service pay, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I mentioned last week, this is still being discussed with the Prices and Incomes Board, and we must await its report. I am aware that there is feeling that there should be early action on this, and I am in touch with the Ministers concerned.
On the question of the Prices and Incomes Bill, what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, but I am dealing with next week's business and I cannot now


make a specific statement about the timing of the Second Reading.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that we have a short debate on an important subject ahead and I hope that we can ration ourselves on business questions.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the decision of the Government to append to the Transport Bill their proposals for a new Channel Tunnel Planning Council will mean that there is no possibility of any discussion on Opposition new Clauses, or on four Government new Clauses, and that, in failing to give extra time or to introduce these proposals as separate legislation, the Leader of the House has failed in his duty to the House?

Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that argument. As the hon. Member knows, I did arrange a meeting with the Minister. I understand that my right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Member with a view to trying to arrange adequate discussion on this.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tees-side there is increasing concern about the state of employment in the shipbuilding industry? There is also increasing concern about the national position in shipbuilding. Will he tell the House whether there is any possibility of giving some time for a debate on this subject?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but I cannot give time for a debate next week.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Leader of the House aware that the letter which I have received from the Minister of Transport promises no extra time whatsoever? All he suggests is that this Clause has priority over Opposition new Clauses and the four Government new Clauses.

Mr. Peart: This question does not deal with the subject of the business of the House that I have announced. I have tried to seek arrangements whereby this can be discussed upstairs. I have the letter here; it seems adequate to me.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I am sorry to pursue this, but it

is a point which I put earlier on of which you, Mr. Speaker, had not had notice. Arising out of my hon. Friend's question, quite apart from what the Leader of the House or the Minister leading the Committee wishes, is it in order to have business added to a Bill on which the Guillotine has been applied, in view of the size of the Bill before the addition?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order at the moment.

Mr. Christopher Price: In view of the savage and sudden redundancies which have been created by the General Electric Company at their Witton works in Birmingham, and as this is the second such incident arising from this important merger, can the Leader of the House tell us how soon we can have a debate on the subject of redundancies arising in this way?

Mr. Peart: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, but not next week.

Mr. Peyton: Is the Leader of the House aware how very appreciative many of us are of his good nature, helpfulness and courtesy, particularly as we have been quite unaccustomed to receive such things from the previous Leader of the House?

Mr. Maclennan: Can the Leader of the House say whether next week there will be a statement made, or some indication given, of the views of the Government on the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, on which we have been promised a debate shortly?

Mr. Peart: I can give my hon. Friend and all hon. Members the assurance that I am very anxious that these Reports should be discussed on the Floor of the House. We start with the Select Committee on Agriculture. I will certainly arrange for the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be debated.

Sir J. Eden: Why did not the Leader of the House use the opportunity of his Business statement to inform the House of the very large number of Standing Committees which will be engaging the attention of many hon. Members next week, and explain the widespread disclocation to the services of the House and the order of our business?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the amount of work that has been done by hon. Members in Standing Committees. We have an all-party Services Committee which examines the services of the House. If the hon. Member has anything more specific I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Roebuck: Can the Leader of the House say what has happened to the great debate on the Common Market? Has he observed the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in the names of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), and other Members on both side of the House, suggesting the exploration of some new methods of trading? Would he give the House an opportunity to debate this at an early date?
[That this House, taking note of the present state of the negotiations to join the Common Market, believe that Her Majesty's Government should, in the meantime, begin a feasibility study of an open-ended Atlantic Free Trade Area initially comprising the United Kingdom, the European Free Trade Association, Canada and the United States of America.]

Mr. Peart: I have noticed the Motion in the names of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, but I cannot give time next week.

Mr. Speaker: May I again remind the House that there is an important short debate ahead?

Mr. Bessell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the unsatisfactory reply that he was bound to give to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), he would consider introducing a Motion to alter the Guillotine in relation to the Transport Bill, so that we have a chance to discuss the many new Clauses which were tabled by backbenchers long before the Channel Tunnel Clause introduced by the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Peart: Many Clauses were withdrawn. I understand that time has been allowed for discussion on many matters. I hope that there will be discussion of the Channel Tunnel Planning Council in the Standing Committee.

Mr. Abse: Could the Leader of the House tell us when the long postponed debate on prisons will take place, in view of the fact that this will be an occasion when two reports could be discussed? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, in view of the public interest, that it is very important that we should have debates touching on Committee work which otherwise will go into limbo?

Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. My hon. Friend knows why there has been a change. I was not responsible for the last debate being curtailed. Not next week.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Leader of the House aware that by giving priority to the new proposals on the Channel Tunnel the Government have done exactly what I warned him about in my supplementary question last week, and excluded a great many new Clauses from discussion? Is this not outrageous treatment of a Committee at the end of its allotted time under a guillotine Motion and a long time after the Clauses which he mentioned have been dropped?

Mr. Peart: I cannot go beyond what I have already said on this matter. I am trying to ensure that there is adequate discussion upstairs.

Mr. Archer: Has my right hon. Friend considered Motion No. 271, which has been signed by 86 hon. Members, and which deals with the conservation of the ocean floor for peaceful purposes? Is he aware of the international discussions which are taking place at the moment? Is there any prospect of an early debate on this Motion?
[That this House believes the tune has come to declare the deep ocean floor conserved as a common heritage of mankind, and that steps be taken to draft a treaty embodying inter alia the following principles:
that the seabed beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction,

(a) be conserved against appropriation by nations or their nationals so that the deep ocean floor should not be allowed to become a stage for competing claims of national sovereignty;


(b) be explored in a manner consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) be exploited economically or made use of with the aim of safeguarding the interests of mankind;
(d) be conserved exclusively for peaceful purposes in perpetuity.]

Mr. Pearl: I have noticed this extremely interesting Motion. This matter is being discussed in the ad hoc committee of the United Nations, but I cannot find time for a debate on it in the House at this stage.

SIR FREDERICK CRAWFORD (PASSPORT)

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Government to withdraw the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, after the exchanges that have taken place across the Floor of the House, that I need not say much to convince you that this is a matter which is specific, important and urgent, and, therefore, appropriate to be dealt with under Standing Order No. 9.
It is a case which deals with an individual who has a most distinguished record in the public services and under the Crown, and who has up to now assumed that his right to come to this country and go from this country to other countries with a British passport is assured.
Secondly, the Commonwealth Secretary has refused to give any satisfactory reason for interfering with the right of an individual. The only one at which he has hinted is one which, to anyone who knows Sir Frederick Crawford's past, is patently ridiculous.
Therefore, this is important, and it is urgent, not only because Sir Frederick's travel plans have all been made—that is by the way—but because it is important that this House should immediately seek from the Government the criteria which will be applied to other cases, otherwise any day other people may be treated with similar injustice.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of the Government to withdraw the passport of Sir Frederick Crawford.
The House will remember that under revised Standing Order No. 9 agreed to on 14th November, 1967, Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in that Order, but to give no reason for his decision.
In the light of the new provision, I now rule that the right hon. Member's submission does not fall wthin the provision of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

PUBLIC SERVICE AND ARMED FORCES PENSIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected any of the Amendments on the Order Paper. May I remind the House that this debate, which means so much to both sides of the House, is curtailed because Private Business is to come on later. I urge every hon. Member who takes part in the debate to speak as briefly as he or she thinks reasonable.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising that despite earlier increases in the awarded pensions of retired public service and armed forces personnel there is hardship, specially among older pensioners, urges Her Majesty's Government to make provision during the current Parliamentary Session for the improvement of such pensions.
The purpose of this Motion is to declare that the time has come for the Government to propose to Parliament measures to increase public service pensions. Timing is of the essence of this problem. The more time is expended, the greater the hardship which is growing day by day and month by month. In our view, vague assurances of good will from the Government are not enough and will not be enough. I know that there is strong support for this view on both sides of the House. I also know that many hon. Members wish to speak and, therefore, I will compress my argument into the minimum possible time.
The basic argument is hardship in the face of rising prices. We on this side are not arguing for the principle of parity, although many people believe in it and the Labour Party, at one time, were committed to it. We doubt its justification and think that its cost would be excessive. We argue that the facts show quite clearly that the time has come for another move forward on this front.
The Prime Minister, in his famous statement in December, 1964, said:
We have also called for public service pensions to be linked to some economic in-

dicator, so that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices, but also receive their full and fair share in rising national prosperity.
That was the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, to which we now wish to hold the Government. There has not been recently very much rising prosperity, but pensioners are suffering considerably because of rising prices, and they are not receiving their fair share of the attention of the country or of the House.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity gave figures in the recent debate for the rise in real wages between 1966 and 1968. The more the Government stress the rise in wages, the more acute is the contrast with pensions, because if wages in real terms have been rising, despite rising prices, the fact is that, because of rising prices, pensions in real terms have been falling during the same period.
There is no doubt that prices have risen since the last pension increase became effective on 1st January, 1966. The price of food, accommodation, transport, fuel and lighting has increased and is increasing. I need not repeat what was said so clearly in the recent debate on rising prices. This is the basis of our claim today—the fact that the cost of living is going up substantially to the detriment of public service pensioners, civil and armed forces. This cannot be denied.
What will be the answer of the Government? They may say three things: first, that prices have not yet gone up enough; secondly, that National Insurance pensions have gone up substantially; or, thirdly, quoting the Financial Secretary, "It is a question of priorities of claims over resources". I wish to deal briefly with all three points.
Since the last increase in pensions, the Retail Price Index has risen by eight points, or about 7 per cent. That is a very substantial amount and a real cut in the living standards of all public pensioners. But how much more is in store for them in the way of increased prices? The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said in the recent debate that during the coming year there would be a 5 per cent. increase in the cost of living, bringing the increase to 12 per cent. since the last time these pensions were increased.
I believe that that was an optimistic assessment. The right hon. Lady's 5 per cent. was based on the assumption that the Government's policies, particularly on incomes, will work. There are few Members in the House who would like to bet too much money on that assumption. Therefore, in the light of these facts—the increase which has taken place since the last improvement in pensions and the increase in prices forecast by the Government—the case for an increase in these pensions now is overwhelming.
I notice that the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot), which you, Mr. Speaker, have not selected, proposes that something should be done when
practicable during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
But this Parliament may go on for another three years, although I hope not, and I doubt it. But that will be a very long time for these pensioners to wait. What is meant by "practicable"? Why is it not practicable to increase pensions during the present Session? It certainly cannot be a matter of incomes policy. A Government who say that there should be a 3½ per cent. norm for wage increases can hardly neglect the case of people whose incomes have fallen by a norm of 3½ per cent. over the last two years. There can be no question of an incomes policy coming into this matter.
There is the argument used by the Financial Secretary on a previous occasion referring to the increases, and I agree substantial increases, in National Insurance pension. We totally reject this argument. We regard it as quite irrelevant. National Insurance pensions are received as of right by all citizens who are taxpayers and contributors. We are talking about something quite different, namely, the Government's obligation to people who have been employed by the Government in the public services—the Civil Service or the Armed Forces. This is the obligation which should concern them.
The Government talk about priority of claims on resources. The Financial Secretary argued that everything else that the Government propose should have priority over increased public service

pensions. Can this argument be sustained? Do the Government really say that they are better engaged in spending money on, for example, nationalisation schemes and maintaining the present very high level of the Civil Service. The Financial Secretary may smile, but this is a very good and valid comparison. Do they really believe, as they appear to be saying, that higher priority should be given to spending money on nationalisation than on higher pensions for people who have served this country well? That is all that can be meant by the argument about priority in resources.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science announced increases in student grants, at a cost of £5½ million. I have no doubt that those increases are justified. But if it is possible now to find £5½ million for student grants, is it not possible to find money for public service pensioners? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will say why it is not possible, or, if it is possible, perhaps he will accept the Motion.
In his last speech on this matter the Financial Secretary stated that he could offer no prospect of any increase this year for these pensioners. I want to know clearly whether the Government stand by this. Is it still their position that no increase is foreseeable this year? If they have changed on that, if they can foresee an increase this year, I see no reason why they should not accept the Motion.
No one can doubt that hardships exist. Many hon. Members have examples to quote. I will not, therefore, go into them at any length. However, there are two special cases to which I will refer.
First, those who have long been retired from the public service. Surely the more elderly these people are the greater the claim that they have on the care and consideration of this House. To take only one example, officers who retired on the 1945 Code have had increases of only 68 per cent. in their pensions while the cost of living has risen by no less than 120 per cent.—a very sharp comparison indeed.
Secondly, I call attention to the position of widows. They are of great importance. I understand that over 3,000 widows are on the minimum rate


of pension. For a major's widow over 70, this is less than the single rate of National Insurance pension, for which many of them are not eligible. A lieutenant-colonel's widow over 70, on the 1919 Code, receiving a maximum Service pension, will be entitled to a supplementary pension on National Assistance of £22 a year if she has no other means. Can there be any doubt that in these circumstances there are cases of hardship which deserve the attention of the House?
We on this side have made our policy in these matters very clear. We have three main points. First, that there should be regular review of the level of public service pensions at two-year intervals; secondly, that increases should start at 55, not 60; and, thirdly, that all these pensions should be brought up to the level of 1956, taking into account the increases that have taken place since 1956. I hope that the Government will not oppose these points.
On previous occasions when my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued for a two-year review, the Government have rejected it, but their reasons, with respect to the Ministers, have been totally inadequate. They have said, first, that such a procedure is unnecessary. But his argument is in conflict with what many senior Members of the Government now have said in the past on this subject. They have said, "Wait for the complete revision of the social services." But this will take a long time, while inexorably, week by week and month by month, the cost of living continues to press up against the living standards of those on fixed incomes and small modest pensions.
There is overwhelming argument for saying that this rather haphazard process ought to give way to a regular review. I fear that the Government may be moving further away from the idea of a regular review. In this connection, we are deeply concerned with the evidence given by the Government's departure from the principle of a two-year review on Forces pay. We hope that this principle will not go further from this whole problem.
Secondly, reducing the age to 55. We think that this is of great importance for those many people in particular activities—the Armed Forces, the police, and the

fire service—who retired below the age of 60.
Finally, I think that we are right in choosing 1956 as the date for equating pensions, because it is since 1956 that the regular process of Pensions (Increase) Bills has been introduced.
To sum up, because I said that I would present this matter briefly, we are not arguing for parity. We accept the arguments against parity are very strong. We say that there is great evidence of cases of hardship arising from increased prices and that the prospects of further price increases, revealed by the Government, are very severe. We say, therefore, that the Government must move soon if they are to carry out the promises given by so many members of the Government, promises to which the whole country fully subscribes. If they do not act as we ask them to act, they are breaking their undertakings. If they say that they cannot act this year, then certainly we condemn them, and condemn them out of hand. If they say that they can act this year, then they can accept our Motion.

5.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): This is the third occasion during the past 15 months on which the House has debated the question of public service and Armed Forces pensions. I make no complaint about this. These people have given many years of their lives to the service of their country and it is entirely right that in their retirement they should not be forgotten, but should continue to attract the anxious concern of the House. Indeed, far from complaining, I must express my lack of enthusiastic admiration for the way in which either party when in power—we all do better in Opposition—has treated this most deserving class of people.
This does not mean, because we are traversing well trodden ground, and doing so today in a short debate, that we have no new idea to canvass before the House. I will try to speak briefly, and I will speak in reply with the utmost brevity, and then only if the House wishes me to do so.
In the debates on this question in recent years, a great deal of attention has been focused from both sides of the


House on the inadequacies of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, under which pensions have been increased from time to time to relieve the hardship to public service pensioners from increases in the cost of living. I do not suppose that any hon. Member would care to argue that these Acts have proved a wholly satisfactory way of dealing with these pensions. I am certainly not going to advance any such proposition this afternoon.
No Member of the House is kept more continuously aware than I of the views of the pensioners and of their real difficulties at the present time. The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has asked us to institute a two-year review. It is not just a form of bromide words when I say that I earnestly and continuously keep this problem under review. My colleagues write to me about it, and I receive representations continuously. It is not just an academic concern I display or a soothing form of words when I say I keep it continuously under review. The fact remains that, despite these shortcomings, the Pensions (Increase) Acts have done much to protect the purchasing power of pensions—particularly of the smallest and oldest pensions, many of which have, indeed, outpaced the rise in the cost of living.
Moreover, in considering the relief of hardship, it is quite wrong, despite the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, to look at occupational pensions alone to the total exclusion, as he would have it, of the flat-rate National Insurance pension, for which well over 9 per cent. of all public service and Armed Forces pensioners now qualify on reaching the appropriate age. The increases in the National Insurance pensions, which have run far ahead of increases in the cost of living, have made an important contribution to the well being of very many of our pensioners.
Let me repeat that it is not my aim to suggest that the present system for increasing public service pensions is ideal. On the contrary, we have made it clear that we are well aware of its limitations, and that we intend to do something about them. But we have also made it clear that we do not believe that a satisfactory long-term solution can be devised until the problem can be studied in the light

of our general review of the social security system. That has nothing to do with the present difficulties. I am talking about the longer term comprehensive solution of the problem.
When we discussed the Public Service and Armed Forces Pensions Review Bill, I reminded the House that over the three years between the effective date of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and the last Act, which came into effect on 1st January, 1966, the cost of living rose by just over 11 per cent. The 1965 Act gave increases ranging up to 16 per cent., so that the older pensioners, with whom we are particularly concerned this afternoon, were more than fully compensated up to that time for the cost of living increase since the previous Act. To that extent something was done to repair the deficiencies of earlier Measures.
I went on to point out that the cost of living had not gone up by more than 6 per cent. since 1st January, 1966 so that the great majority of public service pensioners, but not all, stood to benefit from the up-rating of the National Insurance retirement pension which took effect last autumn. I concede that I am talking about the vast majority. It does not apply to all of them and we cannot ignore the claims of the 10 per cent. who did not get any benefit at all from that. I concluded, when I last addressed the House on this, that the figures did not support a claim for immediate action in our present economic circumstances.
Since that debate, the cost of living has gone up by just over a further 1 per cent. That is, the increase since the last Act took effect is now just over 7 per cent. as compared with just over 11 per cent. between the effective dates of that Act and its predecessor, and with the increases of up to 16 per cent. which the Act provided. This means that I cannot accept that the case is yet made out for an immediate Pensions (Increase) Measure.
What about the prospects for the future?

Lord Balniel: I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak very briefly, so I hope that he will forgive me for interrupting. He is correct in saying that 96 per cent. of the Civil Service pensioners receive the National Insurance pension. Would he also accept that 30


per cent. of the retired officers are either too old or too young to receive a National Insurance pension? This is a very important point, surely.

Mr. Lever: I have tried to emphasise that about 90 per cent. of the whole get these pensions, but that this does not relieve us of our responsibility to the remainder. One can pick out figures to highlight this, but the fact remains that there is a minority of about 10 per cent. of this entire class who do not get this National. Insurance pension benefit and we cannot ignore their situation. I want to proceed to deal with that and to examine the prospects for the future.
We fully recognise that the immediate outlook is for a more rapid increase in the cost of living than we have experienced over the past two or three years. Some of the figures that one hears mentioned from time to time may well be exaggerated, but I tentatively offer the assessment given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State in the House on 1st May, that in the coming year we face an increase of 5 per cent. in prices due to devaluation, the Budget and the rise in nationalised industry prices.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was relying on that figure. I have no hesitation in agreeing that a rise of that order, on top of the increase of about 7 per cent. since the last Pensions (Increase) Act which I have just described, would represent a serious additional burden on our pensioners. But none of us can yet foresee precisely how the position will develop in the months ahead and it would be quite wrong for me today to commit the Government to take action by any specific date on the strength of that forecast. Nor would it be right for me to define any specific figure for the rise in the cost of living, although people may make any reasonable judgment they wish in the light of what I have said.
I cannot commit myself to any specific figure that should trigger off action. A decision to introduce a Bill to increase these pensions has to be taken in the light of all the circumstances, and that is a fact which cannot be blinked away. The right hon. Gentleman can make agreeable debating points here and there, but he knows that any increase of a substantial character in public expenditure

at a time like the present has to be weighed in the light of existing general circumstances.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the rise in the cost of living between now and the end of the year may be less than 5 per cent?

Mr. Lever: It may be more. All I am saying is that to come before the House today and, on the basis of what is necessarily a tentative forecast, to say that on such and such a date or in such and such circumstances I will bring in a Bill, would not be proper?

Dame Irene Ward: Why?

Mr. Lever: Because I do not think that the Government can act on a forecast. They have to see what the situation will be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Lady will wait in patience they will see what my approach is. One cannot commit oneself on a forecast, but that does not mean that one has to stand idly by and wait to see what happens and then go slowly into action. Hon. Members are aware of the problems of increasing public expenditure. This happens to be their day for clamouring for it: tomorrow may be their day for lamenting it. But we must all be aware of the problems of substantially increasing public expenditure and I will not waste time on this theme, which has been fully aired by many better or more enthusiastic speakers than I.
It follows from what I have said that the Government are not able to make a firm commitment to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill during the current Session. I think that hon. Members should wait for a moment and see whether it is reasonable to take up the position that I am not entitled to act on a forecast. Anxious as I am to remove uncertainty, it is inevitable that the date of Government action must remain undecided until a decision can be taken in the full knowledge of movements in prices and our economic situation.
But the House must not draw any wrong inferences from the inevitable caution which a Government must exercise when it comes to a prediction, even of the not-too-distant future. I welcome this debate because it enables me to put


publicly on record that we recognise that the time is not too distant when a Pensions (Increase) Bill will be necessary. We are already active in this matter.

Dame Irene Ward: How?

Mr. Lever: These are not mere words. The preparation of a Pensions (Increase) Bill is an elaborate affair, but we are putting all the necessary work in hand. This is not meant as a mere token of our sympathy with the case for an increase in public service pensions. It has the practical effect that the inevitable delay in deciding when a Bill can be introduced need not put back the time at which the increase in pensions can become effective. As soon as the decision to go ahead is taken we shall be in a position to act without any technical or procedural delay whatever.
I hope that when I take this stand about refusal to make particular and detailed firm commitments based upon tentative forecasts of movements of prices or in our economic situation there will be some sympathy from responsible Members on either side and that nobody will draw any pessimistic inferences from this. I never tire of telling my hon. Friends, and there is no reason why I should not tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that in these days genuine compassion does not consist in writing post-dated cheques but in working hard to see that the money is there in the bank to meet the cheques when they are drawn.

Miss Margaret Herbison: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues are examining all the factors upon which they will finally reach a decision to bring forward the Bill which we are told is being prepared, will they take very much into account the fact that those who have no State pension because of age are also the people with the very smallest pensions, again because of age; that they are the people who, because of the increase which has already occurred in the cost of living, are even today in need of an increase, and that it will, therefore, be very important that the decision is taken as soon as possible?

Mr. Lever: I have all that firmly on board and I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have the point very much in mind.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: The burden of the Financial Secretary's speech seems to be that when the Government make up their mind, they will make up their mind. Can he not accept from us that they will find no obstacle to doing something about it if only they will make up their mind?

Mr. Lever: We have made up our minds that when the point is reached at which we think action is necessary we will act, and there will not be any procedural or technical delay because we recognise that that necessity for action will be in the not too distant future.

Sir T. Beamish: Gobbledygook.

Mr. Lever: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that that is not gobbledygook. I would not come before the House and say these things were they not earnestly meant as a serious token of the Government's position.
I would not have taken steps to ensure that work was put in hand for the Bill if that was intended as a mere bromide. It is a tangible sign that we are of the opinion that action will be called for in the not too distant future. What I am candidly refusing to do is to give a firm date, to give a firm prediction which the country, in its present situation, and with the cost of living and prices still uncertain—they may move fast, or more slowly, ahead than has been predicted—cannot meet.
What I am saying, and not as a kind of sleight of hand oral fraud on the House, is that I have given instructions for the Bill to be prepared. I assure the House that we stand poised ready to act without any unnecessary delay when we see how prices move, and how our economic situation goes.

Mr. Maudling: The last time the hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject he said that it was unlikely that there could be any increase this year. Is he changing his position on that?

Mr. Lever: No. I am not making any statement in connection with the position as it seemed at that time. I am taking into account how things stand now, and the possible movement of prices at the present time. When we have seen how prices move, and how our affairs move, we will have the two determinants


for action. I am saying that action cannot be delayed beyond a very limited period of time. No Government with responsibility for our affairs in the present situation could go beyond that in terms of prediction.

Dame Irene Ward: Dame Irene Ward rose——

Mr. Lever: I really want to get on with my speech.

Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman has given way to others.

Mr. Lever: Very well, but the hon. Lady must allow me to say that without my giving way to her she has made as many interventions as everybody else put together.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The hon. Gentleman says that he has put into operation the preparation of a Bill so that it will be ready when it is needed. Will not the Bill be based on forecasts?

Mr. Lever: No. The hon. Lady must not take up my time with points that are not really relevant. All the legal framework for an increase will be there.

Dame Irene Ward: I can give the hon. Gentleman a Bill now.

Mr. Lever: We shall be grateful for any amateur drafting that the hon. Lady does. If it has the same precision as her interventions in the House, maybe we shall not altogether abandon the services of Parliamentary draftsmen.
I have made the Government's position clear. What is the difference between the right hon. Member for Barnet and myself on this? He wants me to pledge the Government, in all circumstances, in advance, to act this Session. It must be in October or November, not in December, January, or February. Is that the real division between us on this subject? Is the division between us a question of weeks or months in taking action?

Mr. Maudling: The division between us is one of precision and imprecision.

Mr. Lever: The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knows that were he Chancellor of the Exchequer now—[AN HON. MEMBER: "We would not be in such a mess."] Let

us say that if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer it would not be the same mess, but a different mess. I cannot see the fine point of distinction which has been introduced. Immediately after the 1964 election there was not quite such an indulgent view of the right hon. Gentleman's achievements. The situation has improved as the results of the Gallup Polls have improved.
The right hon. Gentleman is a substantial figure in the House. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer he knows that it is not honest for a Chancellor to predict what he will do in October or November of this year in terms of public expenditure, in advance of a possible rise in prices and in advance of knowledge of how our economic situation will move at this crucial time. It is irresponsible for anyone to say, "You are spending money on nationalisation and on civil servants; why not spend it on pensions for these people?"
One may deplore nationalisation, and expenditure on civil servants, but how, with his knowledge and experience, the right hon. Gentleman can dare to equate spending on increased pensions with spending on the nationalised industries or on civil servants baffles me. I appeal to his more responsible self and ask him not to turn what should not be, and is not, a football of party politics into one in today's debate or in any Division that follows.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: As I understand, the division between the two parties is that hon. Gentlemen opposite want something done this Session, and my hon. Friends and I in our Amendment want something done within the life of this Parliament. Only a small sum of money is necessary to deal with this urgent problem, and I hope my hon. Friend is not saying that the national situation is the reason for the difference in the time scale. I hope that my hon. Friend will stick to what he said earlier—that work on the Bill is in hand, and is being treated as a matter of urgency. I hope that he will say that if the work in the Department can be completed in time the Bill will be brought in this Session. The difference between the Motion and the Amendment is so small that it is a technical matter.

Mr. Lever: These interventions will probably save me having to ask the leave


of the House to wind up the debate, because I shall have answered almost every interjection. I hope that it will not be thought that I am taking too long over my speech.
I am not saying that action is dependent on the preparation of the Bill. What I am saying is that we are preparing the Bill to ensure that when we feel obliged to act, and able to act, we will not be delayed for a moment by any technical or procedural matters. Had the Amendment been selected for discussion I would not have had the slightest difficulty in accepting it and voting for it. I am happy to say that if it reassures my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter).
I cannot forbear to refer to the fact that the Motion is in identical terms to a Motion put down by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings)——

Mr. J. C. Jennings: No.

Mr. Lever: It is in virtually identical terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It seems that there is a division of opinion in the party opposite. That is rather rare. It seems that the right hon. Member for Barnet agrees with me that this is substantially the same Motion that was put down by the hon. Member for Burton, and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), and that calls for some comment.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman enjoy the highest regard of both sides of the House. Nobody doubts their sincerity or integrity. Their good faith in this matter is beyond question. I regard it as a privilege to know them both well, and I do not wish anything that I say to reflect on them; rather the contrary. I have no doubt that they tabled their Motion in good faith.
I know that their concern in this matter is wholly genuine. They invited my hon. Friends in large numbers to subscribe to the Motion, which my hon. Friends in large numbers did. I am not sorry that they did. This was an expression of all-party feeling, which was absolutely right. Now that that expression has been given by hon. Members on both sides of the House, are we to feel that it should be translated into some kind of party political advantage?
I know that hon. Members would not want that. I appeal to the hon. Member for Burton and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone to do their best in this debate to retain this sense of united expression of feeling for these people who have earned so much gratitude from their country, but have not always received speedy and practical recognition.
I want this debate to send out a message of the united opinion of the House that we recognise our duty to this deserving group. It gives us an opportunity to recognise the high priority due to them for the alleviation of their difficulties—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that, but he has heard what I have said about commitment. It is for him to decide. He should reflect whether he wants to turn a warmhearted, compassionate and genuine expression of feeling by both sides on behalf of these people into a somewhat unattractive party political football, which will give an utterly false impression outside, instead of that which I have sought to convey. I hope that the debate will convey our united determination and our recognition of the high priority which their claim has now achieved.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on his fresh appearance today after an all-night sitting, at which I joined him, dealing with the finances of the nation. This afternoon we are dealing with the finances of a broad section of the community who need help, and I cannot congratulate him on his speech. Over the years, this section has always lagged behind the rest of the community in getting its share of what used to be called the "national cake". This is the position now. The classes concerned divide broadly into two groups—retired Armed Forces personnel and retired public servants of all descriptions.
Let me deal immediately with the two Motions, because the story behind them is important. This Motion, which was down in my name and those of hon. Members from all the three major parties, and the Welsh Nationalist—[Interruption.] I did not manage to get around to the Scottish Nationalist: she was so evasive at times that I could not catch


her. Nevertheless, this was an all-party Motion. The organisation behind it came from the Public Service Pensioners' Council, whose leader, Dr. Stanley Barnes, conducted a nation-wide campaign, the result of which was that hon. Members were inundated with letters from all sorts of people.
This Motion, which I put down as early as February, has been signed by no fewer than 301 hon. Members, which is a substantial proportion, almost half, of the total. Last Thursday, the Leader of the House announced this debate, and when I examined the Opposition Front Bench Motion, I found that it was almost identical to mine. It is no good my right hon. Friend saying that they are not identical. I have them here, and the wording in the Front Bench Motion has been lifted from mine. I am both proud and flattered. I offer my Front Bench colleagues congratulations on this fact and add, in the most friendly spirit, that, if they ever need inspiration and help in future, I am entirely at their disposal.
Therefore, I am delighted that this matter is being debated again. As I said, I could not altogether congratulate the Financial Secretary. What he told us was not even a step forward, although it is an edging forward. He said that, when the country has enough money to spare, he will have a Bill ready so that immediate action can be taken. That is the total of the crumbs which he offered us. I understand that both Governments—mine when in power and the present one—from time to time have needed considerable prodding. The attitude of a party in opposition differs from its attitude in power. I remember hon. Members opposite, when in opposition, fulminating against my right hon. Friends on this very question and arguing strenuously not only for an increase, but for parity, which both Governments ruled out.
We all recognise, therefore, the need for some action. This campaign has been waged nationally. It is an example to every other organisation which lobbies hon. Members, having been done quietly, persistently, thoroughly, moderately and on sound democratic lines, without demonstrations, flag waving, noisy scenes or inflammatory speeches. The result is

to be seen in hon. Members' post-bags, the 301 signatures on my Motion and today's debate.
The need always has been great in this respect. I want to ask two simple questions. First, have they a case? Second, what is that case? It is proved by the signatures that they have a case, but let me call in aid a prominent Member of the House, no less a person than the Prime Minister. This is another illustration that an Opposition Leader tells a different story when he gets behind the Government Dispatch Box. In October, 1964, before the General Election, the Prime Minister is on written record with the following words, part of which were repeated earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling):
Since we feel the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this matter up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness. We have also called for public service pensioners to be linked to some economic indicator…".
If I had no other evidence, that would prove the case.
Reduced to its simplest terms, what is that case?

Mr. Harold Lever: Is it not right, at this point, to mention that, in 1965, one of the earliest measures which we introduced was precisely an increase of 16 per cent. overall in these pensions?

Mr. Jennings: This is true, and if I were asked to defend my Government I would say that we brought in no fewer than four Pensions (Increase) Bills, amounting to something like the percentage which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and it was we, when in power, who brought in the estimator scale which gave those who had been retired much longer than others a far bigger share. The Prime Minister was convinced in 1964 of the rights of this case. How much more so now? He did something, in 1965, after considerable prodding, but it did not come into operation until 1st January, 1966. The Labour Government were returned in October, 1964 and it took them all that time to bring into operation their pre-election pledges.
What is these people's case? Reduced to its simplest terms, it is that, despite all the economic difficulties which this country faces, others get pay rises—despite devaluation, despite incomes policy, despite tough Budgets—while this


group, which is large in numbers, remains at pension levels which are years out of date. I have plenty of figures with me, but I will not bore the House with them. One incontrovertible fact, however, is that, if there is no rise this year, this will be the first Government ever, the only Government, to let more than three years go by before giving a rise. If I said nothing else, that fact must be met.
I have two practical suggestions—the hon. Gentleman can check up, and, if I am wrong, I will withdraw my claim, but I am sure that I am right—[Interruption.] I repeat, this will be the only Government who, if they do not give a rise this year, have gone longer than three years between rises——

Mr. Harold Lever: Does it not follow from that that the hon. Gentleman could wait until the three years was up before he made a condemnation in advance on the basis of this charge?

Mr. Jennings: The hon. Gentleman is so skilled in Parliamentary affairs that he knows that there are only a few months of this Session left and that the legislative programme is overloaded. If anything were to be given to these people for 1st January next, the Government would have to get moving now with a Bill. Therefore, it is not right to say that I am condemning in advance. The whole point is that something should be done now.
I have two practical suggestions. First, to give a rise now would cost money, of course, but it is a question of priorities. We give family allowances. Are children more valuable than elderly people? It is a different story during General Elections, when politicians are talking to the old age pensioners' associations. We give family allowances and students' grants. Are these people to be behind those classes in the list of priorities?
Within the Government's prices and incomes policy, they could be given a rise of 3½ per cent., but by next January they will be three years behind. Therefore, if they received 3½ per cent. for each of those years, the Government could, even within their own policy, give them a rise of 10½ per cent. I know the reason given, which is valid—that

these people should wait until there has been a review of the social services.

Mr. Harold Lever: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jennings: For far too long the excuse has been, "We must await the review of the social services." Those people cannot afford to wait.

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent me. I have not suggested, and I do not suggest now, that a rise in pensions must await the comprehensive review of the social services. A satisfactory, permanent and honourable way to proceed is for the matter to be completely put right by that review, but certainly I am not saying that we must await that review before increasing pensions.

Mr. Jennings: In the long-term, that must happen. I appreciate, however, that a Bill is to be drafted, ready for action, whenever the opportunity arises. That is something for the immediate problem, but I urge that these people be given some priority and their position looked at immediately.
If the Government cannot do this for the broad mass of pensioners in this category, I suggest that there is a section of pensioners who are very badly off. I refer to those who retired many years ago and whose pensions were geared to low salaries. As a result, they are drawing low pensions. Can at least this section of the retired community receive priority? I accept the Financial Secretary's sincerity. I trust that he appreciates that if nothing is done bad feeling will be exacerbated and that there will be disappointment and frustration among an ageing section of the community who deserve help and support now.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My feeling about these pensions is less one of, as the Financial Secretary put it, compassion, as of ordinary honesty. "Pensions", in this context, is a misnomer. We are dealing with deferred pay. Over the generations the government received service of high quality for a considerably lower wage than industry and private enterprise had to pay for similar service. That service was received at a lower price because the Government promise4 to look after the future of their servants


and widows. That promise is being performed with bad money.
It may be said that private enterprise would also fulfil its bargains with bad money. I agree, but private enterprise is not responsible for making the money bad. Successive Governments have done this as a matter of deliberate policy. To a considerable extent they have been right, because I am heritical enough to feel that a full employment policy requires an element of inflation, and I doubt whether we could have got by without it. However, this should not be an excuse for defaulting on our bargain with the people whom we persuaded to serve the nation and who have served well.
Britain grew great on this service, which in a sense was a hereditary one in that the families of public servants—officers and non-commissioned officers of the Army and other Forces—were a great recruiting ground for the Service. From their earliest childhood the members of those families were brought up in the atmosphere of the Service and they provided the real morale and esprit de corps which we wanted.
Successive Governments have killed that recruiting ground. Few people do not have an uncle, aunt or other relative who does not feel a sense of real and bitter injustice. Instead of making those families, which for so many years have had a public service tradition, the recruiting ground, there is now a strong anti-Service feeling within them.
It is not only dishonest; it is not good sense. It is also bitterly unjust. Men served as professional soldiers in the First World War with the rank of major-general and brigadier-general. I suggest that we who served in the last war got off lightly compared with the earlier generation and the conditions in which they fought. These men and their widows now find themselves being pensioned at a lower level than a young major prematurely retired at the age of 40—at an age when it is not difficult to step into good new employment. This is a bitter injustice. We are speaking of men who served on the basis that they would be assured a dignified retirement for themselves and their widows.
In the battle which we have often tried to wage against poverty my hon. Friend

and I have been keenly aware of the bitter indignity of poverty. Affluence is a relative matter. To some it is a full rice bowl. To others that same rice bowl is starvation. It is a matter of relativity between various people. I would say that one is affluent if, each year, one is a little better off, and that one is impoverished if, each year, one is a little worse off. A declining standard is a cruel standard, and that is the standard which, year after year, has been imposed on these people—each year feeling that they have economised to the utmost but finding that an additional economy is necessary.
Without apology, and contrary to the views of both the great parties, I believe in parity; that it is only honest to pay for the same service in the same kind, so that there should be the same pension for the same service, whenever and wherever it was rendered. After all, that was the specific pledge given by the Labour Party when in opposition. I had the misfortune of giving that pledge from the Front Bench in two successive years. That pledge had been carefully considered and it was given with the full authority of my party because we thought that it was just. I regret that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not equally feel that it is just. It is on this matter that I have on previous occasions felt it my duty to vote against my party.
But that is not the issue tonight and I hope that there will not be a Division on the question of timing. If there is to be yet another Pensions (Increase) Bill, then whether it is introduced in October, November, December or January is not a matter on which the House should vote—that is, for any reason other than party advantage. The Opposition have had assurances which should satisfy them. Although what they want is not what I want, I hope that, for the sake of the dignity of Parliament, we will not have a squalid party Division in which each of us will be expressing feelings which we do not really hold.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I had the honour and privilege to sign the Opposition Motion.
The House listened with attention to the noble speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I


am sure that he will agree that it is surprising that a Minister representing the Armed Forces is not on the Government Front Bench. Although that is a pity, the hon. and learned Gentleman can be said to represent the spirit of the Forces on the benches opposite. Indeed, many of us regret that he did not achieve the Ministerial office which I believe was due to him.
The answer given by the Financial Secretary to the debate has not been satisfactory. I accept that it is easy for debates of this kind to become party slogging matches and, looking back on the record of my party, I admit that our record was not all the best in these matters.

Dame Irene Ward: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fraser: The older I get and the longer I am in Parliament the more I believe that it is the first duty of the House to carry out its obligations. I departed from my hon. Friends on the question of our obligations to the Asians in East Africa. I believe that we have obligations in the matter we are discussing and I completely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that the greatest obligation of those who legislate for the country is for those who have worked in the service of the nation.
It is true that, by and large, these people had a good life and enjoyed their service, whether in the Armed Forces or the Civil Service. They enjoyed it because they had a sense of duty properly fulfilled. The tragedy is that they are now reduced to penury compared with others and that they and their children feel that the State has defaulted on them.
The Motion, which has great support in the House, should be pressed to a Division. We must make it clear that we believe that, no matter the economic problems of the nation, we have certain obligations which must be fulfilled. Unless a clear statement is made that these obligations will be correctly fulfilled—the statement of the Financial Secretary so far is not sufficient—there must be a Division.
The Minister's statement was charming and full of good will. The hon. Gentleman positively exudes charm. I

say that in the friendliest manner and I prefer to call him my hon. Friend, because I have a great personal regard for him and know that his heart is very much in the right place. The answer we have had from the Financial Secretary so far is not the answer which he would wish to have given. I see a more sinister figure, Svengali beside Trilby, on the Front Bench now. We know that behind them is the iron resolution of the Treasury not to yield an inch. The Financial Secretary has told us that his fountain pen is ready to sign the Bill, but that gives no comfort to those who are waiting to benefit from the Bill. I hope, whatever has been said by hon Members opposite, that the House will divide on this Motion.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I think that the House will agree that an advance has been demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary this afternoon. There seems to have been some progress made in the Treasury.
We were told in January that when the time was appropriate the machinery would be put into operation. Now we are told that the machinery is in operation. Therefore, there is some advance. I must confess, however, that I was puzzled by what my hon. Friend said. I sought to hear from him the factors which would have to be taken into account before the machinery produced the end result.
I want to know whether the Government feel that the disproportionate increase in living costs which these pensioners have suffered since the last Pensions (Increase) Act warrants an increase in pensions at this moment, or is it, as has been suggested by hon. Members opposite, that when the money is there it will be shelled out?
I want to hear from the Government, when winding up the debate, what the factors are which will be taken into account when the machinery is finally put into top gear. I do not complain that he took the opportunity of telling the House once again of the Government's general policy in regard to regular review arrangements, but I was not wholly convinced that the arrangements which exist in the Treasury are appropriate and adequate.
My hon. Friend said that we ought not to worry, that hon. Members write to him from time to time expressing anxiety


but that everything is looked after and that in due course something will come out of the pipeline. I am very pleased indeed that, after the last few months and the support given on both sides of the House to the early day Motion, we have had this declaration from the Financial Secretary. As Shakespeare said:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly.
Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have not sought to belabour this point. We have not been given many statistics, but there is general agreement that this is an urgent matter and that we wait with impatience the outcome of the machinery which the Financial Secretary says has been set up and which is working at the Treasury at the moment.
We have heard in moving terms from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) of the position of the Armed Forces pensioners. I speak particularly on behalf of a group of public service pensioners. I make a special plea on behalf of those who have served in the police forces and fire services, who are now old and were obliged to retire because the regulations applying to the police forces and fire services require them to retire at what may be regarded as the comparatively early age of 55 after 30 or 35 years' service.
When a fireman reaches the age of 55 and has done that service he has had about enough. One cannot expect such men to undergo the rigours of fighting fires or active service on the beat in the police after that age, and the regulations say that these men must retire at 55. These men, who retired many years ago, are denied the benefit of the National Insurance retirement pension. There can be no automatic increase for these pensioners when National Insurance retirement benefits increase. I make a special plea on behalf of police officers and policemen and fire officers and firemen who retired in those circumstances in the past.
I know that the Treasury would not wish to deal with this matter piecemeal. It has been suggested that perhaps there are special groups who could be treated separately as a matter of immediate urgency. However desirable that may be, I understand the difficulties which face the Treasury at the moment. We are

glad to know about the regular review. I hope that this will be the last time we shall discuss a Pensions (Increase) Bill. I earnestly hope that we shall not have to wait too long for that Bill. I beg my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Treasury to see that when the Bill comes before the House—and I hope that it will come very soon—we shall be told a great deal more about the general review arrangements and that never again will the House be obliged to go through the situation we have experienced during the last few months.
I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press this Motion to a Division. What the Financial Secretary said this after-noon is an adequate assurance of anxiety to get ahead in this matter. I hope that this will be the last time we shall have to press the Government to introduce a Pensions (Increase) Bill.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) is rather more trusting in the Financial Secretary than I and a number of my hon. Friends would be. The Financial Secretary said two things which filled me with suspicion. I am sure that a number of my constituents will not fail to notice them. First, he said that he was ready poised to sign the Bill with his fountain pen, or something like that. I noted the words "ready poised".

Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Member must not attribute the fantasies or fancies of other hon. Members about my fountain pen being in my hand to my speech. At no point did I refer to this useful article in my speech.

Mr. Godman Irvine: I withdraw any reference to the fountain pen. There is no fountain pen in the hon. Gentleman's hand, but he is "ready poised" to do something, I wrote that down.
I regret that I no longer recall what he was poised and ready to do, but what I do recall, and what my constituents recall, is that when hon. and right hon. Members opposite originally managed to move from this side of the House to the Government side, they did it on election addresses stating that they were poised and ready to deal with the nation's economic situation. We have waited a good long time to see any fulfilment of that


promise. So if the Financial Secretary uses words like that he must not be surprised if they are not found to be very persuasive at least in my part of Sussex.
Second, the Financial Secretary said that he would deal with this matter in months, not weeks. That reminded me of what the Prime Minister said about sanctions against Rhodesia working in weeks, not months.

Mr. Harold Lever: This is all very cheap.

Mr. Godman Irvine: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but these are matters which will not be overlooked in my part of the country nor a great deal of the rest of it. In a little while, he will have opportunity to say what he wants to say. At this moment, I am pointing out that I am not satisfied with the general air of bonhomie with which he has tried to enlist our support. We want something more specific than he has been able to put to us so far.
It is all very well to say that at some time a Bill will be introduced. Week by week my constituents who live on small fixed incomes read about increases in telephone charges, postal charges and a host of other things. They constantly write to me expressing their anxiety. I had a letter only today complaining about the rise in the price of coke. This sort of thing goes on day after day and week after week. My constituents will not be satisfied by a suggestion that at some stage the Financial Secretary will move from his position of being poised and actually go into action.
The last Pensions (Increase) Act introduced increases of between 2 per cent. and 16 per cent. for various classes of pensioner, and those increases came into force in January, 1966. Since then there has been an increase of 7·3 per cent. in the cost of living. The Financial Secretary may say that that is not a matter requiring immediate attention. In that case, I come to my second point and ask him to look at the class of people who received inadequate awards at that time.
One of the first cases I came across when I became a Member of Parliament was that of a man who had been invalided out of the Royal Navy in 1899,

during the Boxer Rebellion. He was then aged 16 and serving in the Royal Navy as a boy. He received a 100 per cent. disability pension in 1899, and he received all the increases which were awarded in Pensions (Increase) Acts from 1899 until about 1955. The total result was that in 1959 his pension was £155 a year. I have urged that case on successive Financial Secretaries as an example of the class of people who need immediate assistance. I think that the hon. Gentleman need not worry about that man any more because I have not heard from him for some time and I believe that he is no longer with us. My efforts on his behalf were unsuccessful.
I have two further examples with me today which I want the Financial Secretary to consider. They are not examples of people who were serving in the last century; but both were serving at the beginning of the last war. One joined the Royal Navy in 1914 and was invalided out as a lieutenant, after 27 years' service, in 1941. He is now receiving £434 a year, including the last pensions increase of 16 per cent.
The other joined the Army in 1915, was demobilised in 1919, enlisted in the Territorial Army, and finally went to the Royal Air Force as a Regular in 1923. He was commissioned in 1941 and retired in 1948 as a squadron leader, a rank in which he served for six years. His pension is £494 a year. He received a gratuity of £300 after 30 years' service. Those who have been serving in the Royal Air Force and who retire today, after the same length of service, receive a pension of £1,000 and a gratuity of £3,000.
The folk I am referring to are becoming very senior citizens. It is not good enough to say to them that the Financial Secretary is poised and that he will act at some stage. He must act now. They cannot wait.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Like other hon. Members, I have received many letters from retired public service pensioners. Many of them are apprehensive about the increased prices which they have to meet on fixed incomes. There can be no doubt that people on fixed incomes, who, in the main, are pensioners, are the first to suffer from a


situation of inflation, when prices are rising rapidly.
It has been said, with some justice, I think, that although the cost of living has increased in recent years, wage and salary increases have more than kept pace with the rise in prices. Whether they will continue to do so is doubtful. In the light of devaluation and the Budget, we understand that there is every possibility that prices will continue to rise, perhaps, 5 or 6 per cent. more before the end of the year.
Nevertheless, it is true that most wage and salary earners have received increases over the past two years—certainly since 1st January, 1966, the date of the last increase to public service pensioners—whereas public service pensioners have been waiting two and a half years or more. The recommendation at that time did not affect people who retired after 1st April, 1964, so many pensioners have been waiting four years or more since the last increase.
The improvement made on 1st January, 1966, gave increases ranging from 2 per cent. for those who retired immediately before April, 1964, rising to a maximum of 16 per cent. if retirement took place before April, 1957. The Financial Secretary, perhaps unintentionally, misled the House by suggesting that, although at that period the cost of living had risen by only 11 per cent., pensioners were given increases totalling 16 per cent. In fact, the increase of 16 per cent. applied only to people who retired before 1957.
I am particularly concerned about the pre-1957 public service pensioner. Many of the scales on which the pensions were paid—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made this point—were based upon unrealistic wage scales. As a consequence, although there is an escalating scale giving bigger percentage increases for those who have retired longest, account is not taken of the erosion in the value of money over their 10, 15 or 20 years of retirement. These are the public service pensioners who are, therefore, beginning really to feel the pinch. They are suffering more than any other section of the community from the effect of rapidly rising prices.
It has been claimed from the Government Front Bench that this is a most in-

appropriate occasion, beset as we are with economic difficulties, to discuss the question of public service pension increases. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite have no political motives in moving the Motion, but they may have difficulty in reconciling the suggestion that we should pay out more money at the same time as they are promising to reduce taxation. However, I accept the sincerity of hon. Members opposite who have spoken. I hope that we can all persuade my hon. Friend and the Government that a case can be made for an immediate increase, at least to those who have retired from employment in the lower reaches of public service.
If the financial hurdle is so formidable—and we recognise that in present circumstances there is an argument that the Government could not afford the full cost of pension increases—why not consider, in particular, those in receipt of modest pensions and the pre-1957 pensioners? They are the people who are feeling the real impact of rising prices. It might be claimed with some justification that retired town clerks, generals, chief constables, higher civil servants and so on receive fairly substantial pensions and, therefore, perhaps suffer the minimum of inconvenience when prices increase.
But if the Government are particularly concerned in their prices and incomes policy about the impact of poverty on the lower-paid worker—and they have clearly said that it is their intention to do something about it, although I can see little evidence of this happening—they should also be concerned with the lower-paid pensioner. I hope that they will give some consideration at least to those at the lower end of the scale.
Some might claim that there is political motivation behind the Motion. But I think that the case has been stated on its merits. I am very disappointed to learn that although preparations are now being made to draft regulations that could be put into effect at the earliest possible moment, there is no possibility of introducing legislation. I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was quite definite about this. Even if it were introduced in the next Session it might well well take three or four months to get through Parliament, and as a result it might be 1st April, 1969, before any increase could be operated.
My hon. Friend has already told us that since the last general pension increase the cost of living has risen by 6 per cent. We are now told that there is a forecast that it will increase by 5 per cent, by the end of the year. It was all very well for my hon. Friend to say that the Government are watching developments very closely and will intervene when they consider the pensioners merit attention. Is that time to be when the cost of living has increased by 8 per cent., 9 per cent., or 10 per cent? Pensioners are entitled to ask how much of the impact in the increased cost of living they are expected to absorb before their pensions are reviewed.
Early Day Motion No. 149 had the support of Members on both sides of the House. There is genuine concern, particularly judging from some of the pathetic letters we receive from our constituents, that a great deal of hardship is being undergone by people on small fixed pensions. If the Government are to organise a drive against poverty they must look at this section of our population.
I appeal to the Government to consider if not a blanket approach to the problem with a general increase in pensions for all retired public service and Armed Forces personnel, looking at the people on the lower rungs of the ladder as an interim measure. Is not it possible as an interim measure, to do something to save them from the full economic consequences of devaluation and the Budget? I believe that such an interim step would be acceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: It is scarcely three months since the subject was last debated in the House, but there is certainly more injustice tied up in it than can be dispensed with in two debates, so I will not make any inference about the right hon. Gentlemen choosing it for their Supply day. A matter like this passes like a baton from party to party, but remains resolutely on this side of the House. Unfortunately, it will apparently remain here for some few months, because it will no doubt do so even if a Conservative Government should come to power.
I marvel at the effrontery of the Conservative leaders in putting down the

Motion. I accept that some Tory back-benchers have always been very interested in the problem, and very concerned about the hardship involved. But their party when, in power, did precious little to ease the burden of hardship. Under the Tories, it was really a case of public service and penury going together. The only principle they recognised in the matter, as far as I could ever see, was that under a Tory Government the older one got the poorer one would become.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) mentioned the Government's refusal of a two-year review. My noble Friend Lord Wade, when a Member of this House, introduced a Bill in 1962 to provide for a two-year review, and consistently badgered the then Tory Government to bring in such a review. It was consistently refused, and the Conservative Government said clearly that they had no intention of bringing in such a regular procedure.
The right hon. Member for Barnet said that by turning down an increase because of the question of priorities, because they did not have enough to spend on it, the Government were in some way saying that everything in their programme was of a higher priority than this. The argument must have been precisely true during the 13 years of Conservative rule, and presumably applied to Blue Streak and the other £1,000 million wasted on defence during that period. The argument can work both ways. The Conservative party may well speak now with honeyed words, but precious little action was taken at the time. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) said towards the end of the Conservative period that this blot on the Tory record was inexcusable.

Lord Balniel: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be misleading, and that he would accept that reform is always a continuous process. In the earlier Acts we abolished the means test. At the time of Lord Wade's suggestion we introduced what is called the escalator, whereby the more elderly people get additional help, and at the same time we introduced a special flat-rate increase for people over 70. We accept that not everything was done in our turn of office, but surely the hon. Gentleman can appreciate with a certain


degree of generosity that reform in this matter is a continuing process?

Mr. Pardoe: I accept that reform is a continuing process, but I wish that it would hurry up a little. One could say that the present Government, though I do not wish to defend them, made steps in this direction by increasing these pensions. The statement of the hon. Member for Tynemouth stands. This was an inexcusable blot on the Tory Government, despite all the advances which the noble Lord mentioned.
When the Conservative Government left office, they had failed to restore any officers' pension to the purchasing value of 1938. It would have required a rise of 200 per cent. in 1964 to restore the 1938 purchasing power. At that time, a general's pension would have had to be raised by 46 per cent., a colonel's by 52 per cent., a major's by 58 per cent. and a captain's by 70 per cent., so they were lagging a long way behind.
The cost of living has risen over 7 per cent. since the last pension increase in January, 1966, and as we have heard from the Officers' Pensions Society, in its brief for the debate, there is likely to have been a 12 or 13 per cent. increase since January 1966, when we come to the end of this year. As a result of the increase in the cost of living, there is obvious hardship, as all hon. Members accept, and some sections are suffering more than others.
More than 3,000 officers' widows are on minimum rates of pension and for many of them the pension is less than that of the single rate of National Insurance pension, while 35 per cent of officers' widows are too old for the National Insurance pension. It seems extraordinary that we still accept a standard of one-third of the husband's retirement pension as being the correct pension for his widow. We should have accepted half at least as the proper standard throughout the whole of the pension provisions in this sector.
The terms of the Amendment in my name show the difference between the Liberals and the other two parties, although I think that the Labour Party, in opposition, accepted the principle of parity. Both the major parties today apparently reject the two essential principles of parity and of dynamic pensions.

But unless we accept them we shall never get over the problem of coming cap in hand to the Parliamentary Order Paper, so to speak, for increases now and then.
Why is parity ruled out? Is it right that a major who retired in 1919 should have a standard of living at least one-third less than that enjoyed by a major who retired in 1965 or 1966? The principle of public service and Armed Forces pensioners receiving the same pension for the same service regardless of date of retirement is right, and if it is right we should find a way to implement it. I do not say that we should do so immediately. We have suggested that it should be done over a seven-year phased period. What I want the Government to accept is the principle and to say that they will implement it over a period.
The right hon. Member for Barnet was familiar with the arguments which he said the Government would use in countering his own. I was not surprised at that because they are precisely the same arguments which the Conservative Government used. For instance, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was wrong completely to insulate any section of society from changes in the value of currency. But it is equally wrong to leave one section of society completely free from the changes in the value of the currency.

Mr. James Allason: The hon. Gentleman is very safe on the Liberal Bench in pledging himself to parity, because he has not the slightest danger of having to implement it. Can he give an example of any private employer who has instituted parity?

Mr. Pardoe: I do not accept the argument that the public sector should always take its standards from the private sector. There is an argument for saying that if the public sector accepted this principle it would attract private provision to do likewise. I want to see the Government taking the lead.

Mr. Paget: Can the hon. Gentleman also quote any private enterprise which got its labour anything like as cheaply as the State did?

Mr. Pardoe: That comment stands by itself. There is no need for me to elaborate on it and I accept it.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames went on to say that it was unfair to tax payers possibly earning less than public service pensioners to ask them to pay more in order to increase public service pensions. That was a ridiculous argument, because it would mean in logic that the Government could not even increase the salaries of public servants above the average level of taxpayers' earnings. The Government must pay not only proper salaries, but proper rates of pensions in the public service, and collect the money from the taxpayers as equitably as possible.
The idea of parity was also opposed by Mr. Profumo, on 20th December, 1962, when he had some responsibility for this matter. He said:
Current pensions are part of a contract or bargain to which the man who retired a long time ago was never a party. Many features of the terms of service in his profession may have changed in the meantime, some for better, some for worse. The contract of service under which he served cannot be reopened."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 20th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 1590.]
This, again, is a ridiculous argument. Of course, the conditions in which the contract was signed have changed substantially. But surely the contract or bargain was committed to a certain standard of living and degree of purchasing power.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Having turned what for the most part has been an all-party approach into an anti-Tory tirade, will the hon. Gentleman vote in support of the Opposition Motion?

Mr. Pardoe: I do not think that my speech can be interpreted as an anti-Tory tirade. I am reminding the House, and my constituents, I hope, of the not-all that handsome record of both the Conservative and Labour Parties in this matter. That is the only point I am trying to make. But putting down the Motion, the Conservative Party has turned this matter into a political issue and in my Amendment I have tried to show that the terms of the Motion are not strictly true.
The principle of dynamism, whereby pensions should increase automatically with increases in pay, seems to relate to the Prime Minister's promise in 1964 in a letter, when he spoke of linking these

pensions to some economic indicator. I ask the Government to accept that current active salaries are the proper economic indicator to link these pensions to. I do not say that it can be done immediately, but in the long term that is the principle we shall accept.
Both these principles of parity and dynamism are right and should be implemented. That is why I ask for them to be implemented in the social security review which the Government have promised us. I hope that the Government will take action now to help alleviate the hardships which exists. I hope, also, that they will write these principles into their long-term policy. It is only by accepting them that we can stop this business of fiddling continually with pensions, trying to get them square but never catching up. That is the only way to overcome hardship in the long run.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: The speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) lowered the level of the debate very considerably. I make it clear that, unlike him, what I have to say will be my own thoughts. It has not been necessary for me to be briefed by anybody. Among the admirable speeches we have heard, I want to refer in particular to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) and pick up a point he referred to in his concluding remarks.
Every time this subject comes forward for debate in the House, I feel some surprise that it is a subject for which it is necessary to legislate. After all, the public service and Armed Forces pensioners whose case we consider are not really in the relationship of citizen to Government but rather in the relationship of ex-employees to their employers.
It is not too much of a paradox to say that the pension scheme operated for their benefit is really a private pension scheme. The fact that, in this sense, their direct employer is the Government is fortuitous in a way. We are really considering a kind of pension scheme. No other private pension scheme requires legislative approval before a change can be made, and I am surprised that we should imagine that legislation is necessary now.
Another reason why I regret the necessity for legislation is that, while I entirely agree that the expenditure of public funds needs close scrutiny and control, I have been unable to see why we should infer from that that legislation is necessary. It is only right and proper that we should pass the pension arrangements for ex-Government employees under close and regular scrutiny. Any firm would want to review its own scheme, and if necessary decide what to do about it. We have a double obligation because we are dealing with public funds, but I cannot see why it should necessarily follow that we require legislation to bring about amendments.
Let us consider the existing pension arrangements and let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the existing pensioners and new pensioners were to live to the age of 100—unlikely but possible. If that occurred the number of people receiving pensions would be considerably increased, and consequently the amount of money paid out would increase correspondingly. No one would suppose that, of itself, that would require legislation. If a greater number of people continue to receive the same amount, and no legislation is required, I do not see why legislation is required if the same number of people are to receive an increased amount. The amount of public expenditure would be increased in either case.
This is hardly the time, and I am hardly the man, to embark on a definition of what is law, but I would suppose that such a definition would include some phrase to express a generality, that the law is something laying down a particular principle, and the application would be left to the courts, the ministry or an appropriate body. When we pass a Pensions Bill for public servants and Armed Forces we enact legislation, but what we are really doing is a mere administrative act, using the guise of legislation.
It is rather a pity that when we want to do something for these people it is necessary to go to the trouble of enacting legislation. I should like to see an absolutely automatic procedure, either by introducing the concept of parity or linking these pensions to any rises in the cost of living. When a pensioner first receives his pension what counts is the value. That is presumably the amount

which the country thinks he deserves, presumably an amount which the country thinks it can afford. The pounds, shillings and pence in which those values are expressed at the time are not of deep significance. If there is a cost of living increase, we should ensure, automatically, that the value of the pension is maintained at its original level. I have never been able to understand why we have arguments saying that we cannot afford that. If we could afford the value of the pension in the first place why can we no longer continue to afford that value?
In the last two years, in previous debates, Members of the Opposition have brought forward proposals for a review body. I quite understand that they have done so because, under a Private Member's Bill, our rules of procedure prevent them from advancing a thorough-going improvement in the position of these pensioners. That did not make their proposals any better. I felt, and still feel, that the review body is very much a second-best. It might say "No", and it can only make recommendations to the Government, which can say "No". We want an automatic decision, without the necessity of coming forward again and again to Parliament for these miserable Bills, taking a form of law, but merely administrative acts. It would be well if, with all-party support, we could take this out of the legislative sphere and make regular, formal arrangements ensuring proper levels of value for these pensioners for ever.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I have listened to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) putting arguments against legislation, about an automatic increase, and about having a review body. What I have not heard him say a word about is how he will vote. From the arguments he has put forward, I should have thought that he was bound to vote for our Motion, otherwise everything that he has said is pure humbug.
I want to make my position quite clear. I have made it perfectly clear previously that we should have a review body. We on this side of the House have tabled a Motion, following an Early Day Motion which many hon. Members opposite signed. We have listened to the charm of the Financial Secretary but we have not


"levered" anything out of him at all. All that he has done is to try to produce arguments which would provide hon. Members behind him with arguments to send to their constituents as to why they have gone back on a Motion that they had already signed. One has only to represent a division like mine, with a large percentage of pensioners, to know the kind of letters we receive when we write to the Treasury on these matters.

Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry that the hon. Member reproaches me for not declaring how I intend to vote. I hope that there will not be a vote, but I have expressed reasons why I think both Government and Opposition are at fault in this matter. Neither course is satisfactory to me.

Mr. Costain: I accept what the hon. Member has said, but I hope that there will be a Division, and I shall vote for the Motion. The wording of this Motion is such that it does not pledge us to keep parity. Anyone who expects parity in pensions is kidding himself. I shall go into the Lobby tonight and vote for the Motion, believing that it is the spirit that matters.
I wish that something could be done immediately. I do not accept the Financial Secretary's statement that he has a Bill ready. What eyewash! If the Government want a Bill, they can produce one overnight. The Financial Secretary is saying that there is a Bill ready to put before the House, and the signal to put the machinery into operation is the shadow of the next General Election. We know what they said they would do on pensions during the period between the two General Elections.
Those of us who are in close touch with pensioners realise that they want assurance for their short future. These elderly people have been brought up to be thrifty. They believe that the right thing to do is to depend not upon charity but upon their own resources. They want assurance that they need not worry.
Although figures have been quoted by the Financial Secretary on the rise in the cost of living, what has not been made clear is the extra expenditure incurred by elderly people on those items produced by nationalised industries. That is why they need better help under a

Socialist Government than under a Conservative Government. The biggest rise is in the cost of heating. The next rise will be in the cost of food, as a result of the Transport Bill. Old people can do without a new suit of clothes, but heating and food are the two essentials. If they attempt to make a saving in these two essentials it is at the cost of their health.
It is a matter of priority. Yesterday we gave extra grants to the students. Surely those who most need help should have the highest priority. The Financial Secretary could have made a real contribution by saying that those who are more elderly and on the lowest scales need the greatest help. He could have produced a formula to give special consideration to those who are over 80 years of age. This was the policy of the Conservatives, who saw the need and tailored their programme to suit it. Surely, the Financial Secretary could tell us what would be the cost of providing a proper standard of health for those over 80.
In my constituency there is a Civil Service retirement home which is an extremely well run place and a credit to those who run it. From such places one can get the facts and one can find out what the need is.
Older people need food and warmth and to feel that they are not a burden on the community. They want to be wanted. Whenever the House debates this question I feel that it is debating whether old people are wanted. It is necessary that the call should go out from this House tonight that they are wanted. We have a responsibility to look after them. For that reason, I shall vote for the Motion. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I wish to declare an interest as a pensioner. In 1953 I retired from the Army after 21 years' service and I received a pension of £490 a year. My pension has not increased during the past 16 years. It will not increase until I reach the age of 60.
The Treasury at one time adopted the principle of immutability. They said that a pension was granted for the service which had been given, and there was no obligation to increase it. That


principle has since been breached and some increases are made, but they are insufficient to compensate in full for the rise in the cost of living.
The increase of 16 per cent. quoted by the Financial Secretary is an increase on the basic pension. If there is a rise of 100 per cent. in the cost of living since the basic pension has been awarded, and a further increase of 11 per cent. in the cost of living, the increase is equivalent only to 8 per cent. In no case do the pensions increases meet the full rise in the cost of living. The first step we ought to take is to try to make pensions increases at least meet the rise in the cost of living.
The suggestion of parity is ludicrous. The Labour Party promised it when they were in opposition and abandoned it very quickly on coming to office. It is now being offered by the Liberal Party, who are in absolutely no danger of being faced with having to introduce the principle of parity. It is a great disservice to pensioners to suggest that parity is a feasible proposition. The suggestion is completely out of touch with reality. No private pension scheme provides for parity. We ought to try to bring pensions to a level which would cover the rise in the cost of living. We have not achieved that.
The Financial Secretary has told us today that there will be a straight improvement in the pension at some time. He says that it is not necessary yet because the increase in the cost of living is not sufficient. But, remember, it is 2½ years since the last increase. He says nothing of improving pensions generally, as opposed to the Tory pledge to bring pensions at least up to the 1966 level, rather than moving just a step in the direction of parity while not achieving it. The proposals of the Financial Secretary are extremely disappointing. There is no improvement in the situation.
In a time of economic ruin great care must be taken in promising future benefits. The Government have a duty to their public servants who are now suffering hardship. As an employer, the Government should be setting a good example. The duty of hon. Members is to see that the Government behave well towards their employees. Individually we have the duty to force this on the Government, and I therefore believe that

we should support this Motion. We know that the Government's proposals are inadequate, and I hope therefore that everyone who has signed the Motion will come into the Loby with us tonight.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind in taking part in this debate. I have been briefed by nobody. What I say is entirely my own opinion.
If I were tempted to follow the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I should be led into a very polemical discussion about which party had done most for the pensioners—the Labour Party or the Tory Party. I should stand on our record during the three and a half years that we have been in office in contrast to that standing to the credit, or discredit, of previous Administrations. Therefore, we shall not argue about that point.
We have heard a lot in previous debates in the House on the treatment of old-age pensioners—and I refer specifically to retirement pensioners who come under the National Insurance Act—about selectivity. We on this side of the House often speak at cross-purposes about the desirability of making advances right across the board irrespective of the recipients' need. I have been in a minority of those on this side who have pleaded with my right hon. Friends in the Government to be more selective about the way in which they dispense public money. This does not mean that I am mean, niggardly or parsimonious. I agree that those in real need should get a lot more. But if this country goes on dispensing public money in the way it has been dispensed right across the board, regardless of whether those who have a title to it require it, we shall be in deeper trouble than we are already.
I wish to refer to what the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) said about Service pensioners. I should like a clear distinction drawn between Service pensioners—time-expired officers and Service men—and war service disability pensioners, who are often in a different category. Many Service pensioners are members of this honourable House. Many high-ranking officers have found their way on to the green benches


in this Chamber and have played a distinguished part in our proceedings. One would never suppose that the mere fact that at some period in their career they occupied an important post in the Army or Navy and at 50 years of age were time-expired meant that they were not entitled to seek admission to the House and become very useful servants of it.
As an ordinary democrat representing, as I do, a Socialist constituency where we are always talking about social justice, am I to support a system which automatically writes into our pension legislation an automatic escalator to shelter people against the effects of inflation regardless of whether they need it or not? These are moral questions, but also very important administrative questions.

Captain Walter Elliot: Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton) rose——

Mr. Price: I promised to sit down at 25 minutes past six. I do not wish to be unfair to anybody. I should have preferred to have had a good deal of time to develop this argument more rationally and coherently than I am doing under the pressure of time.
While I would give my support to any Government who did their utmost so far as the national Exchequer would permit with prudence for those in greatest need, I should strongly resist any system which built in an automatic escalator.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead spoke as an ex-serving officer in Her Majesty's Forces with particular knowledge of this question. He pointed out, quite rightly, that time-expired officers who may take their Service pension at 50 years of age or in their early 50s could not automatically expect an advance until they were 60. This is the administrative procedure under our existing Royal Warrants. But the hon. Gentleman did not say that under the Pensions (Increase) Acts which have been introduced regularly at periods of about two years—the last one was in 1966—an escalator is built in under which those who have been longest retired get the highest increase and those who have been retired for shorter periods get the lowest increase. The escalator—and I am speak-

ing entirely without documents—runs from 18 per cent. for those who have been longest retired to 2 per cent. for those who retired more recently. If an officer retired at 50 and is now in his 60s or 70s, he will automatically get an 18 per cent. increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act.
I shall finish shortly because I wish to keep faith with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is looking worried. I do not want him to get into more trouble because he has enough trouble in the Finance Bill Committee upstairs. However, he must be wary about propagandists who always talk about building in an escalator to protect a privileged section of the community against the continuous effects of inflation. If we do that, we must apply it to the rest of the community. We must apply it to prices and incomes. If I had time, I should be very awkward about that. I am no propagandist on this matter; I merely give a warning shot across the bows.
For goodness sake, do not let us fall for the old argument that we must build in an automatic escalator. No private pension fund does this. I have a great deal of knowledge and practical experience of private pension funds. I am not boasting about it; it happens to be one of my hobbies. No private trustees would ever write an automatic escalator into their trust deed. It cannot be done. The State should be equally prudent in resisting temptations which are delicately peddled forward by hon. Members who have been briefed on this matter. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary says.

6.27 p.m.

Lord Balniel: The purpose of this Motion is to try to bring help to a group of people for whom the Government and every hon. Member feel a special sense of responsibility. The House owes a debt of gratitude, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and the many Members who have signed the Motion calling attention to the problems facing Armed Forces and public service pensioners.
Broadly, we are discussing two groups of people. There are those who, in their


working lives, served the Crown in the Armed Forces—some of them have been through two world wars—and their widows. The other group consists of those who, in their working lives, were civil servants, teachers, firemen, policemen, National Health Service employees, or overseas civil servants.
It is impossible for me to say exactly how many people are involved in the subject matter of this debate, but when we last debated it on a Government Bill in 1965 there were over 700,000 such pensioners. There were 236,000 ex-civil servants; 98,000 ex-teachers; 125,000 ex-local government officers; and 574,000 ex-policemen, firemen, National Health Service employees and civil servants from Pakistan, India and Burma. In the other group, there are 125,000 ex-Service men, for whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), having declared his personal interest in their problems, spoke so eloquently. In addition, there are 10,000 overseas pensioners.
These are not people who have a union to protect their interests. Of course, they have their staff associations, which do their utmost to assist. But the prior claims on staff associations are made by their existing members. There are the voluntary societies and councils which try to protect the interests of these pensioners. In passing, I pay a very warm and sincere tribute to the work done by the voluntary societies and councils. But, of course, they are not negotiating bodies. They do not have the resources to enable them to act as negotiating bodies. Indeed, the Government have never regarded these societies and councils as being negotiating bodies.
These are not people who demonstrate. They do not go marching down Whitehall. They cannot wield any real economic sanctions to frighten the Government and so force their hand. I speak from personal knowledge when I say that they are people who are very unhappy and reluctant to write to their Members of Parliament asking them to organise pressure or a campaign to bring them the help which they reasonably regard as being theirs of right.
As I say, they are not people who are prepared to demonstrate, but they are people for whom the Government—I

mean any Government of whatever political complexion—have a special responsibility if they value their name as a good employer. The Government were their employer in earlier years and, therefore, they have a responsibility to ensure that they receive a fair pension with appropriate purchasing power related to the length of service which these men and women have rendered to the community during their working lives. There is a strong moral obligation on the Government to protect them as far as they are able.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent appeal for those who have been in the Army and Navy. I accept that they have no trade union to negotiate for them, but surely civil servants belong to an organised body, and so have someone to speak for them.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the teachers"] Yes, and the teachers.

Lord Balniel: I have said that the staff associations try to help; but it is fair to say—and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has considerable knowledge about this—that the main emphasis on staff association negotiation tends to be to protect the interests of existing members. I fully appreciate the point—I thought I had made it clear—that the staff associations help.
I was talking about moral obligation. Apart from that, if the Government neglect their responsibilities to the Armed Forces and public service pensioners, the long-term effect for this country could be very grave indeed. Morale in the Armed Forces is not very high at the moment. For instance, in 1966, 70 per cent. of the officers who retired did so on their own volition before the official retirement date. Recruiting into the Armed Forces and the public service, where we expect a very high standard of service, duty and responsibility which we invariably receive, will be adversely affected if people feel that they will not be fairly treated in old age.
For this reason, and because of the rapid drop in the value of pensions today, we were profoundly disappointed by the Financial Secretary's statement:
But, on the facts which I have given, the Government must hold the view that, in our present circumstances, we cannot promise any further increase in pensions; and it is not


likely, I am afraid—it would be misleading for me to suggest it—that a case will be established for further increases in public service pensions this year Beyond that I cannot go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 796.]
We were very disappointed in that statement. We also regret the fact that during the past two years the Government have voted down two Bills—one introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), the other introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor)—which would have set up an independent commission to review the pensions of these people. The purpose of the commission would be regularly to review public service pensions, but the Government turned this proposal down. Therefore, we, as Members of this House, and the pensioners, once again, have to embark on the process of importuning, begging and persuading the Government to give them help.
I feel—and, from what I have heard today, I suspect that the whole House feels—that this irregular ad hoc system is incompatible with our obligations to these men and women. It is incompatible with their dignity. Like the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald), I think it is unnecessary for this House to go through this process every two or three years. The time is overdue when we should establish a regular system of review for public service pensioners. Indeed, the pensioners had every right to expect, from the promises which were made, that a new reformed structure would be introduced. The Financial Secretary said today that he was poised to introduce a Bill.

Mr. Harold Lever: indicated dissent.

Lord Balniel: I remember that the then Opposition, before the election, were poised for instant action. They remain poised for instant action, except that now they are covered with cobwebs. After three and a half years in power there is no indication how they intend to set this review on a regular basis.
Our policy includes the establishment of an independent commission which would review public service pensions and make recommendations to the Government, but of course the final decision would rest with the Government. It also

includes a proposal to lower the age at which pensions could be received to 55. That is of special value to those who are forced to retire early from the Armed Forces, the fire service and the police. We are also pledged to bring up the pensions of all those who retired a long time ago to the level of the pensions of those who retired in 1956.
I accept that these are steps in a continuing process of reform, and they follow other changes which we made when in power—for instance, the introduction of the so-called escalator whereby additional percentage increases are given to those who retired a long time ago.
Why do not the Government accept this proposal? It would do away completely with the necessity of regular campaigning and pressuring. It would also bring—and this is far more important—a degree of certainty and security into the lives of former public servants. The Government cannot hide behind the general review of social recurity, which is their usual excuse for inaction.
It is quite true that the review should cover, for instance, the possibility of establishing some kind of dynamic relationship between the National Insurance and public service pensions. That is something which should be included in the general review of social security, but the question of the level of public service pensions has been specifically excluded from the general review of social security.
Why cannot the Government accept this regular review? They accept a regular review for the pay of Service men and their future pensions. This regular review was introduced after the Grigg Report which stated, quite rightly I think, that it was
essential that inflation should not be allowed to eat away the real value of service emoluments.
If that is a correct and proper attitude to take for the future pensions of the Armed Forces today, why is it not the correct and proper attitude to take for the pensions of those who served in the Armed Forces and public service in the past?
I know what the Minister will say. He will say that there is in the Treasury a body which is continuously reviewing the public service pensions. He said that


again today. I am bound to reply that it appears to be active only when pressure is brought to bear on it. I accept his word that this continuous review goes on. But the important thing is that the recommendations of this review are secret: the House does not know what they are. And, with all respect to the Treasury, they are not the people I would automatically select to be my trustees to protect my interests in old age.
The Government have rejected our proposal for an independent commission. They have rejected our proposal to alter the age of payment to 55, which is particularly important to the Armed Forces, the police and firemen. They have rejected the proposal to give the help which we would give to the older pensioners, bringing up the long outdated codes of the earlier retired pensioners to the level of those who retired in 1956. We have chosen that base date because, since 1956, the Pension (Increase) Acts have in broad measure compensated for the increased cost of living. They have rejected our proposals, but I would ask them what has happened to their promises.
They promised to link the public service pensions not to the cost of living but to earnings. They promised to introduce the principle of parity. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) very bravely and honourably takes on his own broad shoulders responsibility for that promise, but it is not his shoulders only which ought to bear the responsibility. The Chairman of the Labour Party, in a letter to the Chairman of the Officers' Pensions Society just before the election on 14th September, 1964, said:
What I think you will find I said is that pensions will be linked to earnings. This link will mean that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices, but also receive their full share in rising national prosperity.
Are they linked to rising prices?
The Chairman of the Labour Party went on:
As to your further point, you will know that we are favourably disposed towards the principle of 'parity' and that we would open negotiation with interested bodies to see how reforms along these lines can be introduced.
Have these negotiations been opened? With whom have they negotiated? When may we expect to hear the outcome of

those negotiations? Or am I right in believing that no negotiations have been initiated? Are those two promises just part of that vast catalogue of betrayal which is the Labour Government's record?
I turn now to the last argument which I wish to develop in the very short time at my disposal. It is basic to the Motion we have put forward. It is the argument of the cost of living. The last Act came into effect on 1st January, 1966. The effective date of the previous Act was 1st January, 1963. That was a gap of three years. Between those dates the cost of living rose by 11 per cent., and the 1965 Act gave increases which ranged from 2 per cent. for the most recently retired pensioners to 16 per cent. for pensioners who had retired many years before.
I want to make one comment about this because these percentage figures tend to be misleading. The 16 per cent. for the very oldest pensioners was a substantial increase, and I accept that. It was, however, an increase on a very small pension indeed. But it is the future that matters. Since 1st January, 1966, when the present level of pensions was fixed the official index of prices has risen by 7½ per cent., and price rises are now flooding in. The pensions of the 1965 Act are being steadily eroded away.
In the months which lie ahead—and this is important—there will be an absolute deluge of price increases as regards food, clothing, electricity bills, gas bills, coal bills, domestic coke bills, rents, rates, postal bills, telephone bills and bus fares. Almost all these prices increases flow from Government action: from devaluation, or as a consequence of Budgets which have increased taxation by £2,250 million, or from Selective Employment Tax, which will bring a further spiral of increased costs this autumn, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has pointed out, from the nationalised industries, which have the greatest impact on elderly people because they control the costs of fuel and lighting and the other elements which go to increase costs for housebound elderly people.

Mr. J. T. Price: Inflation is going on in every other country, also.

Lord Balniel: Because the Government have rejected our suggestion to set


up an independent commission to review these pensions, the responsibility falls firmly and squarely on this House to protect the interests of those pensioners. In our Motion we call for provision for an improvement to be made during the current Parliamentary Session, three years after the level of public service pensions was last fixed.
We have to look at what is likely to happen during the remainder of the year. Between 1st January, 1966, and December, 1967, the cost of living rose by 6·5 per cent. and it now appears that prices will rise by about 7½ per cent. during the course of 1968. These are not my figures, they are the figures of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. Before the Budget N.I.E.S.R. estimated that prices would rise by 5½ per cent. in the couse of 1968 and the Secretary of State for Employment and Production has stated that they will rise by a further 2 per cent. as a result of the Budget. So it seems likely that the total increase in prices from January, 1966, when these pensions were fixed until the end of the Session will be about 14 per cent.
If the Government do not accept the Motion, and do not introduce provisions, as we call on them to do in this Motion, they will be allowing a larger erosion of pensions than has been allowed at any time since the war. The 1959 Act compensated for a 6·4 per cent. increase in prices. The 1962 Act compensated for a 10·4 per cent. increase in prices. The 1965 Act compensated for an 11·3 per cent. increase in prices. If the Government wait until after the present Session they will in all probability have to compensate for an increase in prices of over 14 per cent.
My final words are these. The Minister has asked us not to divide the House on this issue because we all feel so anxious to secure the interests of these pensioners. I would point out that it is he who will be dividing the House. The Motion is before the House and, if he objects to it, it is the Government who are dividing the House on this issue.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: May I have the leave of the House to reply briefly to the debate?
In so far as the Motion of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has been an occasion for what I believe to be a genuine display of concern by people on both sides of the House on behalf of these pensioners, I welcome it. In so far as it has made possible the superimposition upon this compassion of unseemly party political arguments, I regret it very deeply.
The hon. Member for Burton has got one or two things wrong, and I hope that he will listen to what I have to say before he decides whether to follow his hon. Friends into the Lobby. The 1965 Act was the only Act to be passed within three years of the passing of a previous similar one. That is the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman, in good faith, believes to be the case. That was the only time when there was not a greater interval than three years. That Act provided the most costly and generous increase in pensions of any Act of its kind, and within the briefest interval. My hon. Friends should bear that in mind when they hear the beating of cracked party soap boxes on occasions such as this.
The hon. Member for Burton genuinely believes that unless we act in this Session, in accordance with the Motion, if we think we ought to act in January, 1969, to increase pensions we will not be able to do so. I assure him that that is not the case. The reason for my being able to assure the House that we have put work in hand on the Bill is to enable us, should we decide in the later part of this year that action by January, 1969, is necessary, to enact that Bill immediately and to provide the increases in January, 1969. If we do we will again enact an Act within a period of less than three years. It is dishonest for the Opposition on the basis of the January, 1969, forecast of the standard of living, to ask for action before then. If the January standard of living justifies action in all the circumstances, we will be in a position to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
Now that the Official Opposition have taken charge of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, which has been signed in good faith by many of my hon. Friends, and I am sure in good faith by the hon. Member for Burton and the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh


Fraser), the hon. Gentleman might ask himself why the Opposition have been seeking to score the kind of cheap points that we have heard today about what the Prime Minister said on Rhodesia, and what was promised and predicted in a general way in relation to the specific assurance that I have given the House.

Mr. Jennings: Mr. Jennings rose——

Mr. Lever: I have only five minutes in which to speak, and I still have some ground to cover.

Mr. Jennings: A matter of honour is involved in the charge made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lever: I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's honour; he knows that. He knows that I have the highest respect for him. He made no party political points. I concede that he has the highest political and personal honour in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman might ask himself why the Opposition demand action now, and a commitment now, after a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living, at a time of extreme economic difficulty, when they had never acted on a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living. That was not mentioned by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). They waited until there had been a 14·4 per cent. increase in the cost of living before they acted. In 1962 they waited until there had been a 10½ per cent. increase in the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman is bound to ask why the Opposition have seized his Motion, signed by back benchers in good faith and with the same good intentions as the hon. Gentleman has, at a time when there has been only a 7 per cent. increase in the cost of living, to press for a commitment from a Government who, whatever the reason, are faced with a difficult economic situation. Why are we being asked to take on an improper formal commitment to future action at a time and in such circumstances that it becomes even more in-appropriate when they have never taken on any such commitment in advance of action? Why do the Opposition wish us to act in under three years since the last pension increase, the most generous ever, when they never acted except after a period longer than three years?
I now address myself to one or two other points. Ought we to do something piecemeal for the harder cases? I take the point made by the hon. Member for Burton, but he has his favourite hard case, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has his favourite hard case. It is very difficult to know which are the hardest cases, and it is particularly objectionable to take piecemeal action when I have said that we can regard as proximate general action, which is the only kind of action that is proper and appropriate in cases of this kind, and is not liable to make invidious distinctions between one class and another. If I were asking the House to wait indefinitely before we took general action there would be a strong case for piecemeal action, but it would be ridiculous to take piecemeal action in this Session when, within a short time, we will take the general action that will obviously become necessary.
I have been asked why the community cannot, in real terms, meet the obligations that it took in the past in relation to these and other claimants. I have listened, somewhat startled, to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who knows the answer, asking why it is that if wages can go up faster than the cost of living these people have to be held back? He says that we must put them up. That is an astonishing argument from somebody who has held the offices that he has, and who knows what he does. He knows that the excessive rise of wages and other incomes beyond the cost of living is not an argument for putting up these pensions, but is the reason why we are not able to put them up as promptly as many of us would like. It is precisely because, in spite of growing prosperity, some people, the strongest, are able to edge out the weaker and make a claim on the resources of the country, and because this is not within the Government's power to control, that we are not able to grant as rapidly as we should the fulfilment of some of these obligations.
It is odd that that should be used as an argument by the right hon. Gentleman whose Friends are opposed to the attempt to impose some sort of discipline on our society to make sure that it is not the weakest and the most deserving who are always driven to the wall, and that the fair treatment of these people is preserved


by organising some kind of discipline among the strongest. Those who have doubts about the incomes policy might reflect on the relationship of that policy to what we are discussing today. If we are to relate the genuine compassion of hon. Members on both sides of the House more closely to the action of Governments, we must do more to attend to the distribution of wealth in our community, and not leave it to "the devil take the hindmost" principle.
For those reasons, I say that the sad thing about the debate is that in the midst

of the sweetest sound of genuine compassion we have heard the somewhat jarring and grinding noises of political axes. Unhappily, apparently we are now faced with a Division on this matter where there is no real significant division of opinion in the House. I deeply regret and deplore it. I hope that the House will reject the Motion if it is asked to decide, and that the public outside will draw the correct conclusions from it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 258.

Division No. 138.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Loveys, W. H.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McMaster, Stanley


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maddan, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maginnis, John E.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus


Bessell, Peter
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Biffen, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grieve, Percy
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braine, Bernard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bryan, Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Nott, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hill, J. E. B.
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Campbell, Gordon
Hooson, Emlyn
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, John


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)



Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jopling, Michael
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quenneil, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman




Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Webster, David


Scott-Hopkins, James
Teeling, Sir William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Silvester, Frederick
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Woodnutt, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wright, Esmond


Stainton, Keith
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wylie, N. R.


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Stodart, Anthony
Wall, Patrick



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Hector Monro.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Ledger, Ron


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Alldritt, Walter
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lee, John (Reading)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Archer, Peter
Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Ford, Ben
Loughlin, Charles


Barnett, Joel
Forrester, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil


Bidwell, Sydney
Gardner, Tony
MacColl, James


Binns, John
Garrett, W. E.
MacDermot, Niall


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Gourlay, Harry
McGuire, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Booth, Albert
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maclennan, Robert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mapp, Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
Marquand, David


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hattersley, Roy
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mayhew, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hilton, W. S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, J. J.


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Millan, Bruce


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Moonman, Eric


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crawshaw, Richard
Howie, W.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cronin, John
Hoy, James
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Moyle, Roland


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Albert


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Neal, Harold


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oram, Albert E.


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Dell, Edmund
Jeger, George (Goole)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dewar, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dickens, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Driberg, Tom
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunn, James A.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Judd, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurence


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Ensor, David
Lawson, George








Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitaker, Ben


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Slater, Joseph
White, Mrs. Eirene


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Whitlock, William


Probert, Arthur
Snow, Julian
Wilkins, W. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rees, Merlyn
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reynolds, G. W.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Richard, Ivor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Swingler, Stephen
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Roebuck, Roy
Thornton, Ernest
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Varley, Eric C.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ryan, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)



Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sheldon, Robert
Watkins, David (Consett)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Weitzman, David
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wellbeloved, James

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order>

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first speaker in the debate, I should say that it would help the Chair if hon. Members who wish to speak would let me know whether they wish to speak for or against the Bill or if they are neutral, as this will help me to secure a balance of debate.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: The Bill is promoted by the Covent Garden Market Authority, a public authority constituted under the Covent Garden Market Act, 1961, which charged it with the duty of rebuilding the whole-sale market for horticultural produce which had been in existence for no less than 300 years.
Covent Garden Market is the largest market for the bulk selling of horticultural produce in the United Kingdom. After the passing of the 1961 Act, it was found impracticable for the Authority to rebuild the market in the Covent Garden Market area, but by 1964 it had found a new site at Nine Elms, south of the river. In the 1964–65 Session, the Authority promoted a Bill to authorise the removal of the market to this site. A Select Committee was set up, which sat for one of the longest periods of any in recent years, having 22 sittings. The Bill was, in fact, carried over to the next Session and became law as the Covent Garden Market Act of 1966. This Bill arises from directions which Parliament gave in that Act.
I am introducing the Bill because, of the four hon. Members on the Select Committee, I am virtually the only one left to do it. One, regrettably, died, another has the distinction of being an Opposition Whip and the third is a Chairman of the Committees. I do not intend to explain the provisions of the Bill, which I hope will be done by the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, but I wish to facilitate further and early consideration in Committee.
I understand that the only questions which the Government have raised with the promoters related to the provisions of Part II and the associated provisions in the Preamble and Part I. They arose from the Select Committee's adjudication, incorporated in Section 35 of the 1966 Act and in the Preamble of the Bill. These items are the essence of the Bill. The Committee decided that three things had to be done and they are set out as follows in the Preamble:
(a) to prohibit, as from the date on which the Authority's powers to provide market facilities at Covent Garden are determined, the use of land in the Covent Garden Area (as defined in the Covent Garden Market Act 1961) for dealing in bulk in horticultural produce or the storage of such produce or of empty containers therefor;
The Select Committee's reasoning here was that, as we were to spend about £30 million on a new market south of the river, no one would wish to see a residual market left in Covent Garden.
(b) to provide for the disposal, not later than the said date, of the lands of the Authority situated within the Covent Garden Area and of any lands situated within that area in respect of which, or of part of which, there is in force on a date to be specified in the said Bill a licence under section 21 of the said Act of 1961;
The Select Committee wanted this incorporated in the 1966 Act because it did not wish to see a large part of Central London deteriorate and become an eyesore.
(c) to provide for the basis of compensation payable on the disposal of such lands as aforesaid;
The intention here, of course, was to ensure that a fair basis for compensation was laid down by Statute, which it was not when the Committee considered the Bill.
I understand, from both the Government and the promoters, that the latter have agreed to submit amendments to the Committee to meet the Government's objections. On this basis, the Government have agreed not to oppose the Second Reading, and the Opposition have taken the same view.
Parliament first decided to rebuild this market over seven years ago; we are now dealing with a residual problem which should not be allowed to delay the rebuilding of Covent Garden Market at Nine Elms. It is in the interests of the


wholesale horticultural industry, retailers, consumers, market tenants and the future planning of an important part of our capital city—indeed, in the interests of the whole country—that this rebuilding should proceed without further delay and that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: My main interest in the Bill is that the Nine Elms area, to which it is proposed to move the market, is almost wholly in my constituency. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, this project has now been thoroughly—indeed laboriously—discussed with all the authorities and interests concerned. Two Bills on the subject have already been passed.
Wandsworth Borough Council, the local authority which covers this area in my constituency, has been very thoroughly consulted over the Nine Elms end of the operation and is entirely in agreement with the project as it now stands. Indeed, it is anxious to see it going forward as quickly as possible. In my view and in the view of the council this area is suitable for a market of this kind, with its excellent rail access points as well as road access points which are being developed. Most of the area would be unsuitable for housing. The railways, gas works and other industrial operations there do not make it a suitable neighbourhood for housing.
I regret to some extent that it has not been possible to find a little more land for new housing on the fringe of the area, although some will become available on the river front at the Vauxhall end. Despite that, and in view of all the consultations that have taken place and the clear attitude of my local authority, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even if the plan is not yet perfect, it would not be sensible to revise it now. 'I suggest, therefore, that the right course is for the House to wish it well on its way.
I hope that in carrying out the plan the Covent Garden Market Authority will seek, in those places where there are houses and flats abutting on the neighbourhood of the new market, to plant trees and generally ensure that the

appearance of the market is as pleasant as possible and agreeable to those living in the neighbourhood. This is important in view of some of the unsightly operations which we have experienced in this area in the past.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I, too, support the Bill, having opposed the original plan to have a sort of sample market in Covent Garden with a bulk store somewhere on the outskirts of London. There were obvious objections to that proposal, which I am glad to say has died a happy natural death.
The present situation of Covent Garden as a market for anything, but particularly for fruit, flowers and vegetables, is entirely unsuitable. There are no rail or air connections—a great deal of foreign produce is flown in nowadays—and no sea connections. It occupies an expensive site, slap in the middle of London, and tremendous hold-ups are caused every morning as lorries go to and fro and congregate in the narrow streets in and around the area. It is the only means by which goods can go into and out of the market, even if they originally come by rail or air.
It has for long been obvious that this state of affairs could not continue. A proper site for a full market had to be found, not only where samples could be seen and the bulk delivered somewhere else, but where trading in bulk articles could take place. Like all hon. Members, I am glad that a suitable site has been found at Nine Elms. I am sure that when the present site of Covent Garden Market is sold it will fetch a tidy sum and that that will help to meet expenditure on the new market.
I entirely agree that if the market is to move to Nine Elms, everybody must move. We cannot allow a residue to be left behind trying to retain a market which has closed down. For that reason the part of the Bill which is designed to ensure that that will happen is important.
I hope that in Committee we will examine the compulsory powers aspect of the Bill to ensure that compensation at more than the barest minimum rates is given. When doing compulsory purchase for a market, one needs to be more generous. The market will make a good deal of money, and rightly so in view of


the tremendous amount of business that will be done there. It will be a trading concern, even if it will have the national interest very much at heart. We must be careful when making compulsory purchase orders. If we are not, we will be faced with difficulties, arguments and a great deal of discussion. I hope that we will take the same attitude as we did over the Brighton Marina Bill and see that perhaps 10 per cent. more than the actual value is paid in compensation. That will avoid a lot of trouble when acquiring compulsorily for the new market.
I hope that the Bill completes all its stages quickly and that, when it is passed, the new market will be built quickly so that, in the near future, the centre of London will not be clogged by the traffic which necessarily goes in and out of the present Covent Garden Market and that we will have a bigger, better and more convenient market at Nine Elms.

7.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I welcome this opportunity to explain the attitude of the Government to the provisions of the Bill. As the House knows, there was, during the passage of the 1966 Act, a good deal of discussion about the inclusion of provisions to deal with the future of the lands occupied by the Market Authority and market traders in Covent Garden after the move of the market to Nine Elms. The Government were then of the view that no special provisions were required, since the Covent Garden market would die a natural death after the move, and the ordinary compensation code should be applied to any land acquired by public authorities.
The Select Committee reached no decisions on these issues, other than to include Section 35 in the 1966 Act, requiring the authority to promote a Bill this Session to deal with the discontinuance of the present market, the disposal of lands and the basis of compensation. The present Bill, as deposited, contains provisions which, in the Government's view, depart from fundamental principles of planning and compensation law to such an extent that if the choice lay between accepting and rejecting it as it stands, the Government would have had no choice but to advise the House to reject it.
There have, however, been protracted discussions between the promoters and my Department and, as a result, the promoters have given an undertaking to bring forward in Committee certain Amendments to the Bill, of which I will give details later. They will be seeking the approval of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place to bring forward these Amendments by means of a petition for additional provision. Assuming that this approval is given, and that the Standing Orders Committee recommends compliance with Standing Orders as to the dates of service of notices be dispensed with, the Bill which would come before the Committee would be substantially changed from the form of the Bill as deposited.
It is on this basis, and only on this basis, that the Government are willing to see the Bill proceed. Whether or not the Bill is given a Second Reading is, of course, a matter for the House; but for the Government's part, on the basis of the undertakings given by the promoters, we would not object to the Second Reading.
It is right that I should explain to the House in some detail, and some of it I fear is rather technical, the nature of the Government's objections and the ways in which it is proposed that they should be met. Some of them relate to the vesting provisions, others to compensation.
Clause 6 deals with vesting. It provides for the vesting in an acquiring authority of the Market Authority's land and any licensed land within the Covent Garden Market area, unless the owner opts to retain the land. The acquiring authority may be the Greater London Council, or, if agreement to that effect is reached, a consortium of that Council and the Westminster and Camden Borough Councils. It could also be the Land Commission or some other body.
The Government accept that it is reasonable for the Market Authority's land itself to vest in an acquiring authority because it would inevitably need to be redeveloped with the removal of the market and no useful purpose would be served by requiring the Authority to dispose of it on the open market. But the Government do not accept that it is reasonable for the acquiring authority or


authorities to be compelled to accept vesting of any land in which there is a licensed property without any consideration being given to whether the value of the owner's interest had been destroyed by the removal of the market, or the trader himself had suffered hardship.
This would mean giving the traders the same right as if their property had been blighted, without needing to prove blight. We requested, therefore, an undertaking from the promoters that a Clause would be introduced into the Bill in Committee which, very broadly, would provide that the acquiring authority could resist the vesting of the land on the grounds that there was still a reasonably beneficial use of the land.
We think that in these circumstances a trader should nevertheless be able to require the acquiring authority to purchase his interest if he can show that he has tried to sell that interest but, because of the removal of the market, has not been able to sell it except for substantially less than he would have got before the market moved, and that the new Clause should provide accordingly.
It is the Government's view that such a Clause would strike a fair balance between the interests of the acquiring authority and the traders. It may not go as far as the acquiring authorities themselves would like, but whether it should go further is a question which the Government are content to see argued in Committee and decided in the manner the Committee thinks most appropriate. The Government consider that a provision such as this is the minimum requirement necessary to avoid an entirely unfair burden on a public authority.
The second part of the Government's opposition to the deposited Bill lies in its provisions which relate to compensation. The essential provisions are contained in Clause 11. The House will know that it has been the consistent policy of successive Governments to ensure that the compensation code is applied uniformly over the whole of the country whenever land is acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion. The powers under which a man's land is taken from him should not affect the basis on which his compensation is assessed; it should not make any difference to the amount he receives whether his land is

taken for planning, housing, highways or other public purposes, or whether it is taken by virtue of a Public General Act or a Private Act.
This is not a question of whether the general compensation code is right or wrong or whether or not it could be improved; what we must ensure is that everyone in his dealing with the public authorities is treated according to the same rules. In pursuance of this policy successive Governments have opposed provisions in Private Bills which have attempted to enact special provisions about compensation which differed substantially from those in the general law.
The Covent Garden Market Bill, as deposited, does include such provisions. Their effect would be that market traders, and the owners of premises in which they traded, would receive compensation on a different footing from every other person whose land was compulsorily acquired. For these purposes I think that we must take land that is vested under the Bill as being equivalent to land which is compulsorily acquired. It is true that the compulsion in this case is being applied to the acquiring authority, but this is not a reason for increasing or varying the right to compensation.
The Government find this departure from the normal compensation code objectionable in principle. The question is not so much whether the basis proposed by the Bill would have resulted in market traders obtaining more or less money under the Bill than they would have done under the general law, but whether it is right to depart from the basic principles of the universality of the compensation code and the question of equity as between individuals.
To give a concrete example, why should a market trader, or, indeed, any person owning an interest in licensed land, be paid compensation on one basis if this is vested in the acquiring authority by this Bill, whereas a café owner, say, whose trade equally depends on the market and whose property is compulsorily acquired by the planning authority for redevelopment must be compensated on a different basis?
The specific provisions in Clause 11 to which the Government took objection are detailed ones, but I think I should refer to them: First, there is the provision in Clause 11(1)(a) that compensation


should be paid as if the acquiring authority had purchased the land in pursuance of a compulsory purchase order made for purposes involving development in accordance with the scheme of the Act of 1966; secondly, there is the assumption—in subsection (1)(b) that the notice to treat was served on the "relevant date". I will explain that later.
Thirdly, there is the provision in sub-section (4)(a)(i) that no account be taken of changes in value resulting from the provisions of the Act of 1966 which require the removal of the market; fourthly, the provisions in subsection (4) (b) that the assumptions relating to the planning permission shall be those which are applicable on the 5th December, 1967; and fifthly that, as provided in sub-section (4)(c), there shall be no payment for disturbance.
The first and third provision which I have mentioned can be considered together because the essence of both of them is the same. It is to ensure that compensation shall be assessed as if the market were still operating in Covent Garden and was not moving to Nine Elms. It may be suggested that this is in line with the provision in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, that any increase or decrease in the value of land to be taken which is attributable to the scheme for which it is to be taken is to be ignored.
The fallacy in this argument is to think that the scheme under which the land will be acquired by the future acquiring authority will be the removal of the market to Nine Elms. It will not be that, but the scheme of redevelopment for which the Covent Garden area is acquired. It is only because the Government consider that an acquiring authority will need the land for redevelopment that they have agreed to the vesting provisions at all.
It is true that the removal of the market is a prerequisite to the redevelopment taking place; but it is not part of the scheme of redevelopment itself and there is no reason to disregard any of the effects of the removal for the purposes of acquisition for the redevelopment.
Let me refer back to the example I gave some time ago, of the café owner whose trade is dependent upon the market and whose property is compul-

sorily purchased for the redevelopment of the area after the market is left. The compensation in his case is not affected by this Bill and it will not be assessed on the basis that the market is still in Covent Garden, but in the light of the situation as it exists at the time of the notice to treat.
The second provision I mentioned as being objectionable is Clause 11(1)(b) under which the date on which it is to be assumed that the acquiring authority has served notice to treat is the "relevant date". The effect of this assumption is to provide that the date of the assumed notice to treat, and, therefore, the date at which compensation is to be assessed, would be six months before the Nine Elms Market is opened and before any of the traders have moved to Nine Elms.
One effect of this would be that disturbance payments would have to be made for all the traders, were it not for Clause 11(4), which provides that no disturbance payments should be made. But, as I have said, the Government is not just concerned with the question whether more or less money will be paid, but rather with the general principle of some-one being compensated on a different basis from that which prevails under the general law.
What, then, should be the proper date for the assumed notice to treat? As I said earlier, the Government regard the vesting of the land under this Bill as equivalent to a compulsory purchase. The Bill should, therefore, provide that the date of the assumed notice to treat falls at an equivalent stage under the procedure provided for by this Bill to the stage at which it would fall under the normal compulsory purchase procedure. A notice to treat is the final decision of the acquiring authority that they will take the land in question. Once it has been served, the procedure for acquisition is set in motion and, to all intents and purposes, is irreversible.
The corresponding point under the procedure provided for by this Bill is the appointed day. The appointed day fixes the day of discontinuance on which the land vests in accordance with Clause 6 of the Bill in the acquiring authorities; it makes clear when the new market is to open for business and it sets a term to trading in the Covent Garden


Market area. As from the appointed day the length of the life of the Market is irrevocably fixed.
Therefore, to carry through the principle that the persons affected by this Bill should be treated on the same basis as those affected by normal compulsory purchase orders, the Government have requested, and obtained, an undertaking from the promoters that they would make an amendment to alter the date of the deemed notice to treat.
The fourth provision to which I referred was the requirement, in Clause 11(4)(b), that the assumptions as to planning permission which were to be made were to be those which were applicable on the 5th December, 1967. I can understand the reasons which prompted the promoters to include this provision. No one is sure now what will be the planning position of the land to be vested at the appointed day, and the promoters thought it desirable to instil some certainty into the expectations of compensation which the traders had by specifying that as a basis for compensation the existing development plan should serve.
It might be that, at the time of the appointed day, the then planning position would provide a more profitable basis of compensation. Equally, it might prove less profitable. The promoters considered that certainty was preferable. But the provision offends against the general principles which I have stated.
Under the general law, if this land were to be acquired compulsorily in 1971, it would be the planning position in 1971 which would be relevant for the purposes of compensation. To come back once again to the café owner, if his land is bought compulsorily in 1971, he will be compensated on the basis of the planning position then existing. The Government could not agree, therefore, to this provision in the Bill passing and have received an undertaking that an amendment to delete it will be sought.
The final provision to which objection was taken by the Government is that in Clause 11(4)(c), that no disturbance shall be payable. The subsection was, no doubt, inserted because, without it, the effect of the other compensation provisions might have been to give greatly

inflated compensation, which the promoters quite accepted would be unreasonable to expect the acquiring authorities to pay. It should, therefore, disappear simply as a corollary of the other amendments which they have undertaken to make.
But I would go further. It should disappear also, because it is yet another example of a provision which puts the traders and owners dealt with in this Bill in a position different from that of other land owners. The Government cannot accept that promoters of Private Bills should alter the compensation code to pay themselves or anyone else to whom the Bill applies either more or less than the general law provides.
I apologise for wearying the House with such a lengthy exposition of technical matter on a Private Bill. But I felt it necessary to make clear why the Government are taking the line they are and what the effects of the provisions, if unamended, would be. The promoters have contended during the discussions that these amendments would be unfair in their effect and that, without the certainty of the compensation and vesting provisions contained in the deposited Bill, traders would refuse to move to Nine Elms when the time came. The Government do not accept these contentions. Unfairness can be tested only by the way other citizens would be treated in similar circumstances. It is the Bill as deposited that is unfair because it treats the owners of land affected by it differently from other owners whose land is compulsorily purchased.
Nor do we believe that the alteration of the compensation provisions will cause the traders to refuse to go to Nine Elms when the market authority itself withdraws from the Covent Garden Market. If the economics of operating at Nine Elms were to prove such that the traders needed greater help than they would already get from the Government through the grant for the new market, then we would have an entirely new problem which would have to be discussed with the interested Departments. But the Government cannot accept in any circumstances that the right way to help the traders would be by bending the compensation rules to their advantage at the expense of the acquiring authority.
Finally, as the House will know, it will be open to authorities or persons affected by the Bill to petition against it in its amended form. I should make perfectly clear to the House that the Government are not saying that the Bill must be passed in its amended form; all we are suggesting is that in its amended form it does provide a reasonable basis for consideration in Committee. At the same time, I hope I have made clear to the House that the Government are not prepared to see the Bill pass into law in the form in which it was deposited or in a form which contravenes the points of principle on which we feel we must insist.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: Covent Garden is in my constituency, and my constituents are divided about this Bill. They are not divided on the principle of moving the market, but they are divided on questions of acquisition and compensation. These questions, as we have heard, are extremely complicated, and I speak about them, therefore, with the freedom of ignorance.
It seems to me that, although Nine Elms will, no doubt, suit the traders better—I certainly hope so—the traders are nevertheless being moved, rather than moving of their own free will. Therefore I hope that all property at Covent Garden which is compulsorily purchased will be purchased at full and fair prices, a procedure which, as my hon. and learned friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said a few moments ago, has certain other advantages as well. For myself, I should regard as a fair basis compensation as though the market were continuing in Covent Garden; but I recognise that this is a technical and difficult matter.
On this point, I say only that I should not care to accept the argument on uniformity put by the Minister of State. I distrust uniformity. I thought his arguments, though doubtless correct, a little inhuman and mechanistic. Uniformity is of service only in uniform situations. But here land is not being acquired, as it practically always is in cases of compulsory acquisition, for a specific use; it is being acquired partly to prevent a specific use and partly, also, to make sure that the traders are able to sell their

property in time to set up shop in their new premises at Nine Elms.
In that connection—this is a detail—I do not see why the acquiring authority cannot take parts of buildings, but feels that it must take only whole buildings. It is a perfectly normal practice to acquire, and to dispose of, parts of buildings and interests in parts of buildings. Indeed, it may well be the smaller traders who are the occupiers of parts of buildings and whom we in this House would not wish to suffer loss.
There is another aspect of the move, though not coming directly under the Bill, which I wish to mention. I hope that the acquiring authority will have particular regard to the historic buildings in this area. There is a surprising number, some of them extremely well concealed. Having canvassed in this very old area, I assure the House that there are a great many hidden treasures to be found here.
In particular, I hope that great regard will be had to the market building itself, a building of the first half of the 19th century. It was built in a period which has never had the old glamour of being Georgian, although it is in a classical style, and it now suffers from not having the fashionable glamour of being Victorian. But it is an excellent building, and particularly suitable as a focus, which so many large schemes of redevelopment nowadays lack. Therefore, I hope that particular care will be paid, in any development scheme, to the preservation of the original central market building.
In general principle, most of us agree—and indeed we have agreed—that the market, with its tidal flow of heavy traffic, should go from Covent Garden, which is inconvenient for the traders and inconvenient for us. That is what the Bill is about. Moreover, it is promoted in compliance with directions given by us in the Covent Garden Market Act, 1966. For those two reasons alone, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading so that its complicated and technical provisions can be sorted out in Committee.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I too hope that the deadly uniformity the Minister is trying to impose will not


necessarily be forced on the Market Authority. We must bear in mind that the Covent Garden Market, the Covent Garden legislation and the whole situation we are discussing is absolutely unique. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the wishes of the promoters, the Market Authority, which itself is the creature of Government, should be deeply considered.
Those of us who had the great privilege the other night of attending the Danish Ballet, which ended just as the market was about to begin to trade, had borne in upon us to the full what a very unsuitable place it is for a great vegetable market. Those of us who know Denmark and Copenhagen remember the extremely good and modern market which the Danes put in a position comparable to the Nine Elms site in a very short space of time. I remind the Minister that the matter has dragged on since 1961 far too slowly. In announcing his 20th July cuts in 1966 the Prime Minister set the whole project back, in the same phrase in which he set back municipal swimming baths and so on. This treatment by the present Government of this great national project caused great offence both to the horticultural trade—it is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head, because it did cause great offence.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) reminded the House that the original proposal was not very adequate or work-able.

Mr. Wells: The original proposal was that of 1961. I had the privilege of abstaining then. I sat on the benches opposite as a comparatively new Member and disagreed with my own party that night. I went the whole way, perhaps further than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). But we do not want to go over old ground tonight.
I urge the Minister to help the Market Authority to assist the tenants and the Tenants' Association to obtain the most equitable compensation possible. I do not disagree with a word that he said on Clause 6, but I am at some variance with him on his lengthy dissertation on

Clause 11. I do not have his privilege of being learned in the law, but it seemed to me that he was a trifle doctrinaire in this matter. He spoke to the effect that the Government would bless the Second Reading and expected the promoters to put forward various alterations. If those which the Government favour were not accepted by the Committee I understood that the Government would turn sour upon the Bill. But they must have a Bill of sorts. It is essential if the country's horticultural trade is to have a great central focus. The 1966 Measure must be carried through to its conclusion.
The provisions of Clause 11 are very complicated to the layman, and are no doubt complicated enough for a lawyer. They make a set of conditions which seem to me reasonable enough for a unique operation. It is not as though it is the same as the hon. and learned Gentleman's mythical café being taken over. I understand that under the Land Compensation Act, 1961, compensation can be assessed in several different ways, but the cornerstone of the code which the Minister mentioned is existing use value, which represents the minimum amount the owner can expect to be paid. Existing use value can simply be described as the value of property on the assumption that it continued to be used for the purpose for which it was being used after the date of compulsory acquisition.
Compulsory purchase powers are normally sought where a local authority wishes to carry out a redevelopment of the sort the hon. and learned Gentleman outlined. In the ordinary course of events, such existing use value is clearly equitable, since there is no reason why a private landowner should be in any way different from any other member of the community. But the problem I find is the definition of existing use value that would apply in this case. Here I am perhaps speaking the thoughts of the market traders, because I have considerable horticultural interest in my constituency and I am Chairman of the Sub-Committee considering horticulture in the Select Committee on Agriculture.
It seems to us that horticulture in the broadest sense needs support from the Government. If the code in the 1961 Act


were applied, any redevelopment prospects arising from the removal of the market would be ignored in the assessment of the existing use value. The traders accept that that is reasonable, but the code would allow to be taken into account the effect of the existence of the new market at Nine Elms on the value of Covent Garden premises. But the Covent Garden Market and the new market at Nine Elms will never be in operation at the same time. The traders feel that this puts an artificial situation in the interpretation of the valuation terms. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not be too dogmatic in this.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) hoped that perhaps a few more houses could be squeezed into the Nine Elms site. We appreciate his interest in the housing well-being of his constituency, and I should not presume to speak about his constituency, except to remind him that the great European markets of the sort with which we hope that this new market will be on all fours have needed more and more land year by year. Although the great Continental markets within the E.E.C. set out as fine markets in new concrete and glass structures only a few years ago, they have nearly all had to develop further. I should hate to see the right hon. Gentleman's constituents put into nice new houses and then find them being compulsorily acquired on the Minister's terms only a few years later. Therefore, I hope that the Market Authority will not be artificially curtailed now that it has this great site.
There is a fundamental difference between the Nine Elms site and Covent Garden in that Nine Elms has a railhead which will make the whole style of market trading different. I believe that the British producer will not specifically benefit from this, but it is just possible that some of the long-haul broccoli producers from the South-West will benefit. It is essential for the Government, as its godfathers, not to try, as I fear the Minister of Housing and Local Government is doing tonight, to spike this Measure, which is really their own and should be brought in as a Government Measure and not as a Private Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: As I represent one of the principal horticultural areas and one of the most distant, I want to intervene to make a plea to the Government to hasten this Bill through at the earliest opportunity. For many years, horticulturists in West Cornwall have been waiting for the Covent Garden scheme and, with legislation now before the House, particularly the Transport Bill, there is deep concern, particularly among those growing broccoli and early produce in West Cornwall.
The matter which concerns us is the distance and time it takes to get horticultural produce from the far South-West to London. If the Nine Elms scheme could go ahead as fast as possible, it would bring great benefit to the horticulturists of the South-West.
For example, under the proposals now in the Transport Bill, it will be impossible for Cornish broccoli growers to reach Covent Garden in the statutory nine hours; this is likely to have a devastating effect on the potato and broccoli trade in my constituency. Covent Garden cannot be reached in nine hours and can hardly be reached in 10 under the new proposals the Minister of Transport is discussing. But the new site could just be reached in about 9½ hours. This is another topical reason why we hope that this scheme will go forward at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will quickly solve the problems he has over compensation and get ahead with the new site, because it will be of substantial benefit not only to my constituency but throughout the country.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Everyone who has spoken in the debate has been in favour of the Second Reading, indeed of hastening the Bill through. One would think that it would not in these circumstances have come to be debated on the Floor of the House. Let us be quite clear that this is a Private Bill, and Private Bills normally do not have their Second Readings on the Floor of the House, but that this debate has been forced upon the promoters and on the House by the Government.
The Government want some substantial Amendments to the Bill. Indeed. the Minister of State says that the Government would not be prepared to see the Bill passed in the form in which it was deposited. The Bill must be passed this Session if the Covent Garden-Nine Elms scheme is to go forward. It was ordered by Parliament in the 1966 Act that there should be a Bill on the lines now deposited in this Session, so the promoters have no room for manoeuvre in face of Government obstruction to their Bill.
I understand that the promoters have, therefore, given an undertaking to amend the Bill as the Government want it amended, and in a statement they have circulated they say, in paragraph 8, that they will bring up for consideration by the Committee to which the Bill is referred certain Amendments. But it is clear from what the Minister of State said, and from the tone of the promoters' statement, that they have been forced to do this by the Government and that the promoters are not happy that they have been obliged to concede the Amendments required by the Government.
The result in procedure is that a petition will have to be lodged by the promoters for additional provisions. That petition will have to go before the Standing Orders Committee because it is against Standing Orders unless that Committee so permits, and any of the petitioners or anyone else who does not think that the compensation provisions are fair will have the right to put a memorial before that Committee objecting to the petition for additional provisions.
Then the original petition and the new one will go before the Committee dealing with the Bill and there are already three petitioners who will wish to amend their petitions, no doubt, on the new basis of compensation and there may be possibly other petitions. Because of the obstinacy of the Government over this there is the possibility that the Bill will be seriously delayed.
What is the nature of these Amendments? As the Minister of State said, they deal mainly with compensation, that is to say, compensation to traders whose places of business will be compulsorily

taken away from them under this scheme. The Bill is obliged to include compensation provisions. This was laid down in Section 35 of the 1966 Act, which is quoted in paragraph 4 of the preamble to the Bill. Section 35 said that there should be this Bill in order
…to provide for the basis of compensation payable on the disposal of such lands as aforesaid:
Of course,
…the disposal of such land as afore-said…
means the disposal of land and buildings in the present Covent Garden market in order to transfer the market to its new site at Nine Elms. When land is compulsorily acquired for purposes involving development, in the normal way Case I of Schedule I to the Land Compensation Act 1961 applies—that is to say, one disregards, when valuing property for compensation, the purposes of the development scheme. One treats it purely and simply on what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) called the cornerstone of compensation, existing use value.
In this case, the Bill seeks to disregard, in assessing compensation, the 1966 scheme. This scheme was not merely the closing down of the Covent Garden market. It would be a nonsense to say that. It was to close down Covent Garden and to open a market at Nine Elms. That is the whole of the scheme.
Under the general law, the purposes of the development schemes must be disregarded in assessing the compensation. So the Bill, as deposited and before amended as the Government wish, says that compensation shall be based on existing use value of the property in Covent Garden, disregarding the fact that Nine Elms will be in existence at some time in future. I contend that that is perfectly fair and in accordance with the general law.
On the other hand, the Government want to say:
Your places of business in Covent Garden must be valued on the basis that there is to be a new Market at Nine Elms. If there is to be a new market there, no one will pay much for the property in Covent Garden because Nine Elms will be the place to be in future.
No one will pay much for property under those circumstances, even if there were


no prohibitions on market trading at Covent Garden. It is quite disgraceful that the Government should force these Amendments on the promoters and the House.
The Minister of State has said that the promoters thought that these Amendments were unfair. I ought to say at this stage that these words have not been put in my mouth by the promoters. The promoters have come to an arrangement with the Government, one which seems to me to have been forced on them, and they would not wish me to say on their behalf that they want to break that arrangement. But in my opinion the promoters ought to be relieved of that undertaking. It was grossly unfair to impose it on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) made a very significant remark when one remembers that he served on the Committee dealing with the Bill in 1966 when the provision was inserted that there should be a Bill in this Session dealing with compensation.
My hon. Friend said that a fair basis of compensation was laid down by Statute, which was not the case when the matter was discussed in Committee on the 1966 Bill. Therefore, the Committee at that stage wanted some new provisions for compensation dealing particularly with this scheme, and that is what the promoters are now putting before the House. The Government want to cut down the compensation to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) called the barest minimum. This should not be so under a scheme of this sort, where it is so important that the scheme should run smoothly, that there should be the movement of the market traders from Covent Garden to the new site at Nine Elms.
The promoters have tried to carry out as far as I can see, the wishes of Parliament in 1966. They have provided, as the Bill is drawn, fair compensation on an existing use value basis, which in my submission is wholly in accordance with the existing law, namely, that the purposes of any development should not be taken into account in assessing the compensation.
On the question of obliging the acquiring authority to acquire the property, this is being very niggling on the part of the Government. Market trading is to be

prohibited in future on the Covent Garden site. Then the Government wish to say, "Oh, but you can use the property for some other reasonably beneficial use." Anyone who has dealt with town and country planning, with compensation and compulsory acquisition, knows the meaning of the words "reasonably beneficial use."
They know that Section 129 of the 1962 Act has been useless to any owner whose property is reduced in value by some development scheme. I can think of no occasion when those who will be left with buildings in Covent Garden will be able to show that the buildings cannot be used for some reasonably beneficial use. If the buildings are there, of course they can be used for something. In this, case the acquiring authority will be able to pick and choose and refuse to acquire compulsorily wherever it wishes. The market trade will have no case whatever when he tries to show that his property no longer has any reasonably beneficial use. This means any use at all. If the acquiring authority can show that the property can be used to some purpose then it can refuse to acquire.
The scheme was to move the Market from Covent Garden to Nine Elms as a whole. Each trader has to rehabilitate himself at Nine Elms. How will he do this when his capital is left in property at Covent Garden, because he is told that that the property can still be used for some reasonably beneficial use? I would have thought that Clause 6, as it stands, is perfectly fair, and that the acquiring authorities should be obliged to acquire.
It seems to me that the promoters, as they have lodged the Bill, have carried out what Parliament asked them to carry out in the 1966 Act. They have made provision for perfectly fair compensation; they have made provision for the acquisition of property by the acquiring authorities and altogether they have produced a reasonable and fair Bill. It is most unfair of the Government to force undertakings out of them for Amendments which do not give fair compensation to those displaced.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: With your leave and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will reply to some of the points raised.
I hope that when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has had an opportunity to study carefully the speech which I made a little while ago he will perhaps come to a more moderate conclusion than that which he reached as a result of his immediate reaction. On a few factual points, he said that the Second Reading was forced on the House by the Government. It was the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) who objected, but I do not make any pretence, and have not sought to throughout, that if he had not done so we would have, so as to give me an opportunity to explain to the House the reason for these objections which we made.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I objected. I did on one occasion because I was anxious that this important matter should be debated, but I must point out that it was the Government Whips who objected on practically every other occasion.

Mr. MacDermot: I have said that we would certainly have objected, but the suggestion was that no one else wanted a Second Reading and that is not quite fair.
It was said that the Bill must be passed into law to enable the move to Nine Elms to take place. I must make it clear that this is not correct. I do not want it to be suggested that the Government are opposed to the Bill in any way. I have made it clear that we are not, and that provided that our requirements are met we are perfectly content that the Bill should go through.
We have always taken the view, and said so before, that in law there is no need for the Bill, in the sense that the Market Authority and the traders will be free and able to dispose of their old properties when the Market is moved and there is no need for an operation requiring these people, rather euphemistically termed "acquiring authorities" to acquire. It would not be essential to the scheme. One can see advantages all-round if an agreed framework can be found, but there is no legal necessity for it.
Equally, the effect of Section 35 of the 1966 Bill is not to require that an Act shall be passed. No Parliament ever can in an Act require that Parliament shall pass another Act. What it required is

that the promoters should promote a Bill dealing with these matters and use their endeavours to get it passed. That they most certainly have done, and I make no suggestion to the contrary. I must correct the impression that in some way, as a matter of law, the passing of this Bill is a necessary and essential preliminary to the opening of the Nine Elms market. It is not.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely, from a practical point of view, it is necessary. If the Bill did not exist there would be no complete prohibition on trading in the market, and no compensation.

Mr. MacDermot: Once the Market Authority moves to the new area, it is the view of the Government that the old market will die a natural death. Different views may be held on that. However, as the Committee included this provision in Clause 35, we certainly respect that, and are perfectly content to see a Bill pass through which gives effect to that in a way which does not offend against the general principles of the compensation code.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that the property of the traders will be compulsorily taken away from them. That is wrong. It will not. The effect of the vesting provisions is that, if they consent, the property will vest in the acquiring authority. We get confused by the euphemistic terms "disposal" and "acquiring authority".
This is not a compulsory acquisition by the acquiring authority. It is a statutory provision, telling whoever eventually becomes the acquiring authority—it will be the G.L.C. if nothing else is agreed—that it has to acquire, unless the owner of the property says, "No, I do not want you to; I opt to retain it." That is a very different transaction from the ordinary compulsory acquisition.

Mr. John Smith: Can the occupier or the owner opt to retain it, or must he obtain the agreement of the acquiring authority?

Mr. MacDermot: No, he has an absolute option to retain it, and I am advised that it is likely that a number of them will exercise that option, for the reason that a number of these properties are useful and valuable properties containing valuable storage space right in


the centre of London, which is something that is very much in demand. They may well, therefore, prefer to retain it, and it could be to their financial advantage to do so. May I say, in parenthesis, this is the explanation of the existing use provisions in the Bill.
The provision in Clause 11(4,aii) will ensure to the traders or the owners of licensed properties—not necessarily the traders themselves—that they will continue to have the benefit of their rights under the Use Classes Order. If the land is acquired, they can have it valued with the value of those rights for other ware-house purposes under the Use Classes Order.
The hon. Member for Crosby challenged what is the basic principle of the Government's attitude. He says that it is the accepted principle on compulsory purchase—and I am treating this as if it were a straight compulsory purchase—that you can ignore the effects of the scheme on the acquisition. I entirely agree.
The hon. Member goes on to say that the opening of Nine Elms is part of the scheme of the 1966 Act. I agree, but my point, and the Government's point, is that the 1966 Act is not the scheme of acquisition. If this is treated as a deemed compulsory purchase, then the scheme of acquisition is the purpose for which it is acquired by the acquiring authority, namely, the scheme of redevelopment of the old area after it has been acquired by the acquiring authority. That is why it is right to assess the compensation on the basis of the realities of the existing use at the time of acquisition, and on the basis of the planning position and the planning assumptions which are relevant at that time.
I come back to the café proprietor. The hon. Member for Maidstone said that these traders are not the café owners. Indeed they are not. They are in a much more favourable position than café owners. The café owners will be every bit as much affected by the 1966 Act, even more so. They will have their business closed down because it is tied to, linked to, and depends on the existence of, Covent Garden Market. That goes.
Assume that their land is required for the scheme of redevelopment, whatever

it may be. They do not have the advantage of being provided with an alternative market to which they can move, which is receiving a grant from public funds, to help them start up in business else-where. They will have to take the compensation code as they find it and take their compensation on the basis of the realities of the situation which prevails at that time.
It is not deadly uniformity that we are insisting on. We are insisting on the normal basic principle of compulsory purchase compensation which is, "Do fairly between people in a like situation." I am sure the hon. Member for Maidstone would be the first to rise in his wrath if we were to make provisions which would enable a person to be more favourably treated than one of his constituents in a like situation under compulsory purchase.
One may have objections to the compulsory purchase code. I am well aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have such objections. These matters are all under consideration, as I have made clear to the House. It may be that, by the time this comes into force, there will have been some alteration in the compensation code but, whatever it is, we say that that compensation code must, mutatis mutandis, be applied to this situation as fairly as can be, and on the basis of the same principles.

Mr. Graham Page: I fail to appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's café proprietor case. Are there to be no cafés? Nine Elms will be a miserable sort of place if there are no cafés. The principle is exactly the same for the market trader and the café proprietor. The café proprietor will be told that there is another place for him to go to, and therefore his property will be valued on the basis that there is somewhere else for him to go to.

Mr. MacDermot: All I can say is that the promoters of this Bill have not made any provisions for the café proprietors which would cover them in the way that owners of land on which traders are carrying on their business are protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

PASTORAL MEASURE

8.19 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: I beg to move,
That the Pastoral Measure, 1968, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
I should say that Her Majesty has given informal approval to the proposal that the appointments to the Redundant Churches Fund to be set up under this Measure should be Crown appointments, and that the Prime Minister is content with the proposed arrangements outlined in Clause 42 of the Measure.
This is the longest Measure ever to be brought before the House for its assent, and it is largely a matter of consolidation. It is based upon two very distinguished Commissions' deliberations. The Ilford Commission, which was chaired by a former distinguished Member of this House, was set up in 1954 by the Church Assembly to attempt to find solutions for the problems caused by the great changes in the population of parishes and other ecclesiastical areas which have taken place in the last 50 years. The Second World War gave immense impetus to developments of this kind. The trouble was that there were parallel and often conflicting procedures for dealing with these matters, and it was felt that there was a need to rationalise and clarify the structure of the legislation in the framework of which these changes might take place. It was also felt that improvements suggested by the Ilford Commission should be made.
Then there was the Bridges Commission on Redundant Churches. In 1963, the Church Assembly decided that its proposals should be incorporated in the draft legislation suggested by the Ilford Commission. In 1964, there was the report of Mr. Leslie Paul, making far-reaching proposals for parochial reorganisation. In particular, it recommended the setting up of team ministries for large parishes and of group ministries for groups of parishes. Finally, the Bishop of Thetford's Committee was appointed to consider these recommendations. In 1965, the Church Assembly instructed the Revision Committee of the Pastoral Measure to incorporate them in the

Measure, with certain suggested modifications.
That is how this Measure came into being. I make it plain that it was exhaustively debated in the spring and summer sessions of the Church Assembly in 1966, in the spring session in 1967 and in the summer session of 1967 when final approval was given to it by the Church Assembly without a division and with only one dissentient voice. When the Measure came before us, the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, as Members can read on page 8 of its Report, pronounced that the Measure was "expedient".
As befits a creature of the magnitude and importance of this Measure, its period of gestation was long. But I hope that the House will feel that the labour was not in vain and that this is a real attempt by the Church of England to fit itself for the duties which lie upon it in the second half of the 20th century.
Parts I and II of the Measure deal with the procedure to be followed where pastoral reorganisation is necessary. This is to be effected by pastoral schemes, or, in cases of less importance, by pastoral orders. The main difference between the two is that in the case of a scheme, for the more important matters, the Privy Council is required to give its consent, whereas orders, for the less important matters, can be made by a bishop.
But both schemes and orders are launched in the first place by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop of the diocese concerned in consultation with all concerned—incumbents, pastoral church councils, patrons and planning authorities. The Measure is so designed that this consultation shall take place in the most early formative stages and will be continued throughout the proceeding.
I have said that this is mainly a matter of consolidation, but there are certain important changes, and I am sure that the House would expect me to draw attention to the more important of them. There is a shortened procedure for holding benefices in plurality. In future, benefices so held will continue to be held even when there is a vacancy unless either the bishop or the pastoral church council, by notice, terminates the plurality. Then the team and group ministries to which I have referred are to be set up.
In the former, the cure of souls in the parish or parishes of a single incumbency will be shared by a team consisting of the incumbent, to be known as the rector, and as many vicars as are necessary who, however, will also have the status of incumbent. In the latter, there is a group of benefices where the incumbents are obliged to help each other so as to make the best possible provision for pastoral care.
It will be possible for a scheme, although not an order, to come into operation without the consent of the incumbent affected by it. It is felt that an incumbent who refuses his consent ought not to be allowed to hold up a scheme thought by the Pastoral Committee and the bishop to be necessary in the interests of the pastoral care of the area. In other words, one man should not be allowed to block a scheme which is generally thought to be beneficial from a pastoral point of view.
If an incumbent loses his office by reason of reorganisation of this kind, he is given most generous compensation, which includes compensation for the loss of his free house. He has the right to state his objection right at the start to the Pastoral Committee. Later, he can object to the Church Commissioners and, finally, he can appeal to the Privy Council. On the amount of compensation, he has the right to appeal to an entirely independent tribunal presided over by a judicial authority.
There is a new power in the first two parts of this Measure to which I should refer. It will be possible in future to authorise a suitable use for a church yard or burial ground where the church is not redundant. Part III deals with a subject in which I know many hon. Members take a deep interest, namely, the subject of redundant churches. How right they are to take that interest, having regard to the wealth of the heritage, artistic, architectural and historic, which so many of these buildings have brought down to us.
Two new bodies are to be set up to ensure that the right thing shall be done. An Advisory Board for Redundant Churches is to be set up. The Members are to be appointed by the two archbishops, after consultation with the Prime Minister. Their duty is to give authoritative advice to the Church Commissioners on the historic or architectural

qualities of a church which it is proposed to make redundant, or to advice about its use, preservation or demolition. The House will note that the manner of the appointment of these members to the Advisory Board is calculated to attract the confidence of the Church, the Government and the people.
Secondly, there is to be a Redundant Churches Fund, a body corporate, whose duty it will be to hold and preserve for the Church and the nation the redundant churches committed to its care. Its ministers will be appointed by Her Majesty—hence my opening remarks, that Her Majesty has given informal approval that the appointment of Members to the Redundant Churches Fund shall be Crown appointments—after advice from the two archbishops has been submitted through the Prime Minister. It is understood that the Government will contribute a sum of £200,000 to the Redundant Churches Fund during the first five years of its existence and that the Church Commissioners will contribute a like amount.
Before a church can be treated as redundant, there must be a pastoral decision to declare it so by a pastoral scheme. The church is then vested in the Diocesan Board of Finance, which is responsible thereafter for its upkeep. The future of the church is decided after an interval of between one and three years in a redundancy scheme of the Church Commissioners. In the interval every effort will be made to find a suitable use for that redundant church. After the interval the redundancy scheme must authorise either a lease or sale of the redundant church for some suitable purpose, or its vesting in the Redundant Churches Fund for preservation, or its demolition and the disposal of its site.
There is one other very interesting proposal, that in special circumstances a church which is declared redundant, but which is of special architectural or historical merit, may be taken over by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. But, whatever happens, in no case can a redundant church be demolished without the advice of the Advisory Board.
In my submission to the House, this Measure reflects the determination of the Church to deal not only with redundancy in churches and with the problems


brought about by the shifts in population away from churches, but also with the need for pastoral care in large and sometimes growing new communities hitherto inadequately cared for. It may well be that, after considering the painstaking work with which this Measure has been produced and perfected, the virtual unanimity of the Church Assembly in its favour and the approval of the Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses, this House will feel that, as regards those who have laboured to bring the Measure thus far, it too should wish them well and godspeed in their further endeavours.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I too, welcome the Measure in general and have no intention, of course, of opposing it, but there are one or two points which I should like to put before the House and I hope that the Church Assembly and its professional advisers will take note of the sentiments I am going to express.
This Measure, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) has told us, is the largest Measure so far laid, a fat little volume. As we all know, this House can neither amend nor alter, it can only pass or reject. Therefore I deplore the fact that it is a fat little volume. I would have preferred it to have been three or four smaller volumes. The Measure falls into four separate parts, which I freely admit lead one from another, but I believe that this habit of laying before the House omnibus Measures, however praiseworthy, which one would feel an awful cad to say anything against, immediately puts hon. Members who have any doubts in a grave difficulty. Therefore, I hope that this fat little volume is not going to be looked upon as a crafty precedent by the professional advisers to the Church Assembly. I hope this is the last Measure of these dimensions that we shall ever see.
I would say in passing that I do not believe that the Measure which the hon. and learned Member slipped through a year or so ago in such a learned manner would have got through this House had other hon. Members been aware of some of the extraordinary experimental services that are being tried up and down the land today. I believe that the man in the pew is very disgruntled by that

Measure, which Parliament whistled straight through without any dissident voice. I would be out of order if I dealt at length with this, but I say to the hon. and learned Member that I very much deplore the passage of Measures which are only partly under-stood by the man in the pew.
This Measure is, in general, unexceptionable, but I see it as seeking to impose an urban ecclesiastical pattern on the Church of England. It is right that the Church of England should move itself, and be able to move itself, as the centres of population move, but until today the Church of England has been organised administratively primarily on a rural basis. I hope that this urbanisation will not have an adverse effect on rural parishes, which are by no means all scattered, because it is in the rural areas that the great bulk of ordinary simple Christian people who go to church regularly are to be found. There is a far higher percentage of regular communicants in the rural areas than in other areas, and I hope that this urbanisation pattern will in no way militate against their wellbeing.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention briefly the effect which this Measure will have on my constituency. Maidstone is about nine-tenths in the Diocese of Canterbury, and one-tenth in the Diocese of Rochester, which is administratively and pastorally most inconvenient to our clergy. The so-called vicar, who is in fact a curate, in charge of that part of the town which is in the Diocese of Rochester looks forward keenly to the passage of this Measure so that there can be the reorganisation of diocesan boundaries which it will bring about.
I must, however, look back about 18 months to what happened in Maidstone. The Archbishop sent us a high-powered committee, the Brown Committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) served. The learned commissioners, including my right hon. Friend, produced some very good points. They also produced some which some of my constituents thought were not so good, but during the year since the Committee reported to the Archbishop and made certain clear recommendations the Archbishop and his minions have taken a number of specific steps which


fly in the face of the Committee's recommendations.
It does not encourage distinguished churchmen of any sort, whether they are laymen or clergy, to serve on committees to work hard to put up schemes if their schemes are then rejected. I accept that there was some cause for alteration, but there are some recommendations of the Committee which cannot be brought into effect for some years because of subsequent acts. I therefore deplore this habit of setting up committees and flying in the face of their opinions. This is one of the risks that I see in this Measure.
I spent enough of my childhood in the lowlands of Scotland to be fundamentally suspicious of bishops. I believe that it is bad to move power, if one can call it power, away from this House into the hands of the episcopate—because that is where it is. It is not in the parochial church council and diocesan council, because few people except the very militant ever dare like saying "No" to the dear vicar, and even more do they dislike saying "No" to the dear, dear bishop. One of the unfortunate habits of church people is that if they disagree fundamentally, they go home and grumble, and then become Nonconformists or Roman Catholics.
On this question of giving power to the episcopate, one of the most notable examples is patronage. I apologise for the fact that the statistics which I have are about 10 years old, but they show that there were about 840 livings in the gift of the Crown and its various officers, including the Admiralty which had eight at that time. The diocesan bishops had about 3,000 livings, the deans and chapters about 700, the parochial clergy about 1,200 and diocesan boards of patronage 200. Thus, the purely ecclesiastical patrons about 10 years ago presented to over 5,000 livings. Universities, colleges and schools presented to about 850 livings and about 7,000 of the remainder were in the hands of private patrons.
It is my experience and that of most hon. Members that non-episcopal patrons take far more trouble in selecting prospective incumbents. The bishop tends to send down the only lame duck on his list and one has to have him, but a private patron will go to endless trouble. I do not mean only lay patrons, but the

universities, colleges, schools and officers of the Crown. Those who exercise the selection on behalf of the officers of the Crown do a splendid job and act as private patrons.
Lest the House think that I am a rabid Presbyterian because of my attitude to the episcopate, I must make it clear that I am not. But bishops are slapdash and idle in their presentation to livings and I hope that the power given to them by this Measure to deal with benefices will not in future encourage them in bad ways. I hope that private patronage, in the best sense, will not decline.
I hope also that the provisions for redundant churches will enable them to be offered for sale freely to other Christian denominations. They were founded and endowed by Christian men over the centuries who would not like their endowment and effort to go astray, but it has been represented to me that there are areas in which churches are almost certainly redundant where there have been difficulties in offering them either to Roman Catholics or to Non-conformists because of local lobbies. I hope that we may be assured that, provided it is a Christian denomination and the church is genuinely redundant, it will be on offer to them.
Referring again to redundant churches, because the donors of the past and those who have laboured through the centuries to maintain beautiful buildings, the Church of England has a great difficulty in that so much money is spent, on providing museum places rather than on the cure of souls as we should like. About half the money in the redundant churches' fund comes from the Government, but half still comes from the Church Commissioners. When redundant churches become purely places of architectural interest removed from the worship of God, they should be more largely secularised and I question the wisdom of financing this fund on a 50–50 basis. I apologise for dealing with a constituency point and reiterate that I am not a rabid Presbyterian.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has struck, as he is entitled to do, a somewhat critical note over this Measure, I should like to enter


a brief word of support for it. I do so as one who, a year or so ago, as my hon. Friend said, had a small and insignificant rôle in the work of reorganisation, to part of which this Measure is directed. For a few months, I had the honour to be on one of the Archbishop's Commissions under Sir Thomas Brown. By some strange coincidence our work, which led us into the very town represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone, provided me at least with a little in-sight and perspective over Parts I and II of the Measure.
This is simply that, in many places, the physical structure of the church and the parish boundaries no longer conforms to the whereabouts of our population. This is especially true of new communities and of those in which there has been rapid expansion since the war. It was certainly true of the single area in which I have had experience of this work. Most of our churches were built a long time ago and most of our major changes in population have occurred very recently and rapidly. Therefore, in many areas, parish boundaries have become meaningless.
The town, part rural, part urban, in which we worked illustrated very well some of the difficulties and some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu). My hon. Friend is entitled to say that Maidstone is typical of many places in England. In this regard, it faces a great dilemma, as do many other places of like history and structure. The boundaries of a dozen churches are situated some-where in the centre of the town, which once—but this is no longer true—was the main centre of residential population. Nearly all these churches are supported by congregations of differing sizes but all are devoted to their particular church and its needs and are willing to give freely and undergo great sacrifices to sustain their own church.
This is not the least of the difficulties confronting those who ordain these changes and they will provide not the least of the difficulties as these changes are gradually brought into being. There is a faithful laity as well as a faithful clergy and my experience is that, on balance, they can prove almost as tenacious.
Then, on the fringes, we have very large estates. In many of the new creations, the church of the former village constitutes a natural centre, but more often than not these new communities are not so endowed. I do not think that this is a situation which the Church can accept with complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said something about a pattern of urbanisation emerging from the Measure. What else can we expect in this island? As a countryman, I must acknowledge that we are an urban and urbanised nation and that, therefore, many of our areas such as those I am discussing will become urbanised.
This is also not simply a matter of realigning boundaries, controversial though that may be. There may be a case—indeed, this is one of the principal provisions of the Measure—for establishing one principal church as a focal point and equipping it or its leader with incumbents who constitute a team, so making it possible or the team to work from the centre under the direction of their leader. In this instance we have provided that. Behind that lies the thought that a team or group can be directed from one centre. It follows that not only will boundaries have to disappear but that benefices and parishes will have to suffer dissolution.
I am aware that a great deal of heart-break is involved in this. Many loyalties and many strong associations, some going back for more than a generation, are involved, often with the same family having made sacrifices to maintain them. Family ties will have to be broken up as a result of what is being done. Nobody likes doing this and, in the circumstances, those who are responsible and who do the work on the Commission are frequently confronted with a feeling that they are being required to act ruthlessly. Yet sometimes it has seemed to me that it is essential to be, if not ruthless, then, at least, decisive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone said that the Archbishop had already countermanded some of that work. If so, far be it for me to question the wisdom of Lambeth. It does not alter the principle, which is that hard decisions must be made and that compromises must often be set aside. This will


inevitably produce hard feelings and a great many objections in detail. Otherwise, I fail to see how the Church will shape itself to the needs of the community, not in accordance with the needs of 1868 but of 1968, assuming that a Measure of this kind will not often be before us. We may not have another for a generation or more. This is an important aspect to bear in mind. We are now discussing a pattern which must be established and hailed until the end of the century, or beyond.
While I speak of compromise, I should, perhaps, refer to delay. It is possible for individuals to delay proposals indefinitely—or it might be possible if Clause 24—to which some exception has been taken, but which I believe is needed—were not included. On the other hand, there is need for safeguards and these seem to be contained in the Measure. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg adumbrated some of these.
There are certain matters of great importance for which safeguards are provided. However, where particular changes are proposed, it is inevitable that there will be criticism and bitterness in certain places. There are bound to be misgivings about some provisions. However, the main objective of the Measure and the thinking behind it is sound.
I have no doubt that we must accept the new physical pattern of the country and the need to conform to it. This is, in a sense, the Church doing what countless other institutions have had to do or will have to do. It is the need to conform to the need of a rapidly changing population. In my insignificant experience of these matters, the Measure accentuates the need for change and that is why I give it my unqualified support.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I wish to make only a brief intervention on this highly important Measure. It is worthy of note that possibly one of the most important Church Measures that have come forward in recent years is being debated at this hour in an almost empty House. I cannot think that would have happened 20 or 25 years ago. There would have been far more debate about it. It is a matter for some sorrow that

so important a Measure as this should be passing through the House with so little comment.
I pay tribute to all those people, within the Church and outside it, who have guided this Measure through its many stages. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) I am certain that this Measure is absolutely necessary.
I rather regret the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells) in regard to bishops. If he reads the Measure I think he will find that, either by the guidance of diocesan committees or in one way or another, we can rely on the fact that where a decision is taken which may check the rights of individuals, whether incumbents or patrons, those powers will be used with full responsibility and used rightly.
Of the necessity for those powers I have no doubt at all. As my right hon. Friend said, we are living in a rapidly changing world in which old parish boundaries are no longer valid, a world where the urban explosion has to be catered for, where churches and parishes are not in the right positions. Tribute should be paid to the Church and lay authorities concerned for the fact that they have faced the great difficulties inherent in this basic problem.
I give the Measure my support. I hope the House will send it on its way for, only by incumbents and patrons surrendering up to a point their vital and basic interests in the interests of the Church as a whole, shall we ever find a solution to this problem. When we work out the provisions of this Measure I am certain that we shall find there is very little hardship and no injustice involved. I give the Measure my fullest support.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) I shall address the House briefly. I want to speak on the section of the Measure relating to redundant churches. I wish to say how much I agree with the words, and the spirit behind them, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)


The Church has a great task in front of it. It needs this Measure as the machinery to carry out that task. Society changes very quickly. With due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone (Mr. John Wells), it changes as quickly in the countryside as in the town. The motor car causes more and faster change in the countryside than in the town. The motor car is making an enormous difference to the whole pattern of rural life and that will be reflected in the sort of changes made under this Measure.
I also welcome the Measure because it provides for different forms of parochial experiment. We have a changing society and we need to be able to use different techniques. The fact that we can do this under this Measure is of the greatest value. Many of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maid-stone referred not so much to this Measure, which in general he welcomed, as to the broader question of patronage and deployment which is under discussion in the Church at the moment and which will ultimately be in a Measure consequent on this one.
I know my hon. Friend would disapprove more than anyone else had that been part of this Measure. Nevertheless, this Measure will not be complete until there is also adequate provision for deployment and patronage. When that is debated, I shall be agreeing with him in trying to fight against an over-centralised appointment system. I have already expressed my view on that in the Church Assembly.
I greatly welcome the provisions in the Measure relating to redundant churches. A few years ago, I had the honour to be asked by the Archbishop of York to chair a Commission to consider the problems of redundant churches in the City of York, where there are many magnificent medieval churches in areas from which the population has wholly or partially gone. We found, in our consideration, that a Measure of this sort was essential—I put it as strongly as that—to enable our suggestions to be carried out.
We need the flexibility and powers to deal with redundant churches which the Measure introduces but which do not exist at present. There can be argument

about whether these powers should be introduced in this Measure. For my part, I think that it is all part of a pattern, and I stress the absolute necessity for machinery such as is laid down here, with safeguards, as the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said, and with the right sort of advice. It is essential for this part of the Measure to be maintained.
Like other hon. Members, I wish to speed the Measure on its way. To the many people, clerical and lay, who will have the enormously difficult task of carrying it out, I wish the very best of good fortune.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I welcome the Measure and commend it to the House in the terms in which it has been welcomed already. I thought the comments of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) unjustly censorious and critical of the Measure. He alleges that this is a rather large chunk of change coming all at once, and seems to suggest that there is something sinister about it. But those of us who have read the Measure recognise that, if one makes changes in one respect, as we are doing here, other changes are inevitable at the same time. Moreover, there are real dangers in bringing in piecemeal legislation, bit by bit, when the hon. Gentleman and others might rightly ask what more was to come and why we could not have a glimpse of the rest at the same time.
I do not take up the hon. Gentleman's comments about the bishops being slapdash and idle. I speak tonight not as one of the Church Commissioners, having accepted the Archbishop's recent invitation to join that body, but as one who has some experience of the problems of the organisation of the Church, and having been a member of the Archbishop's Commission on London and the South-East. In that work, one appreciated the immense need for change. In my view, this Measure is long overdue.
It is a substantial Measure of over 100 pages and nine Schedules, and it repeals wholly or in part about 29 Acts of Parliaments. But all these changes are necessary, dealing as they do with the need for group and team ministries, the need for plurality in some areas, the


need to deal with the problem of redundant churches, and, perhaps most important, the need to safeguard the interests of those involved, incumbents, patrons and others who have a duty and a responsibility and whose rights should be protected.
The Measure is an attempt to make the best, most efficient and most economical use of the manpower, money and materials employed by the churches today. It comes at a time when the country is undergoing immense changes, scientific, medical, educational, moral and other in every part of our lives. The Church must keep pace with change, it must change itself to suit the conditions and times in which it lives if it is to fulfil its mission.
The question of redundant churches must be dealt with now. Such redundancy is inevitable in present times, not because some think the churches are less full and have no useful place in the future but because of the mobility of people. There are new areas in which people live, new housing estates and so on, which make many churches redundant in some central areas and create enormous demands for new buildings, churches and halls in other areas. There must be the degree of flexibility which is permitted by the Measure.
It is important to realise that when people have been worshipping in one community for some time they wrongly tend to think that their church is most important to them instead of having regard to the wider needs of the community at large. There is a real need for greater flexibility of outlook among church people in appreciating the needs of the wider community, rather than thinking of their own area with which they have become identified over a period of time.
Various hon. Members who are not present tonight have expressed views about the effects of churches being closed and the possible use of land on which they stand. I understand that there is some concern about churchyards in the inner and central residential areas of London and other big cities. These areas where churches are likely to become redundant give us an opportunity to have open spaces instead of falling for the temptation to use the land for other purposes. Churchyards sometimes provide

the only possible source of land for public open spaces, and I hope that those who are responsible in city and built up areas will have regard to the wider needs of the community to maintain the open spaces we have and to increase them wherever possible.
In the Measure there is adequate protection for the rights of parishioners, clergy and incumbents and all affected by the changes. As my hon. Friend said in moving the Motion, several Commissions have already looked at the matters involved. The Church Assembly has gone into them, as has the Ecclesiastical Committee. We are all satisfied that there is adequate protection for those who are affected by the changes, especially those who may be made temporarily redundant by group and team ministries. These are most important matters.
There is need to look ahead to the time when we have greater unity among our denominations. The Measure will allow changes which will make it possible for us to co-operate with other denominations at a later date. I think particularly of group and team ministries.
The Measure is long overdue. Changes of this sort, although we welcome them, can only be most effective and beneficial to the society in which we live only if people who work in the church at all levels recognise the challenge we face at present. We must use the changes in the best possible way to have the kind of involvement in the community which the country so greatly needs. Therefore, I welcome the Measure and hope that the church as a whole will make the fullest use of the opportunity we afford by these steps.

Mr. John Wells: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that he has sat down. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order. I had desired to correct a remark that the hon. Gentleman made about my speech, but out of courtesy to him I waited until the penultimate moment of his speech. I thought that he was easing himself into his seat, but I did not think that he had actually sat down.

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little late, but I shall be very lenient tonight. Mr. Wells.

Mr. Wells: I only wanted to say that my strictures on bishops were not on them in their general capacity, because obviously they are excellent and hardworking men, but merely in their exercise of patronage, which I think is poor compared with the private patron.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: With the leave of the House, may I answer one or two points made in the debate. There was the point about bishops to which the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has just referred again. He should remember that in these days it is very hard for a bishop to act alone. He is rather like the Queen in Council. He is always surrounded by an advisory body of one sort or another, to whose opinions he has to pay attention.
Therefore, although I understand the origin of the hon. Gentleman's suspicions—way back in the past somewhere north of the Border—I feel that the position in this country at least is very different and that one need not have any of the fears to which he gave expression.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of this as being a Measure of urbanisation of the Church. I would be very much against it if it were, but how can it be urbanisation to deal, as it is the duty of the Church to try to deal, with the urban population, provided that it does not ignore the rural population? I understand that these proposals for group ministries might well have an effect which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would approve. It might well diminish the loneliness often felt by incumbents in the rural and sparsely populated areas. They can now feel that they have a chance of working together and helping each other. The same will apply to team ministries, which, I suppose, will be more likely to occur in urban areas. One obviously cannot ignore the urban areas and in not ignoring them one should not be accused of urbanising the Church.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was suitable that a church should be handed over to another Christian denomination. But this has been done already

under various other provisions. This Measure, in Clause 51(8), provides for this very thing and, of course, in the context of the Measure it would have to be another Christian denomination to which the building was handed over.
I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop). I am sure that those responsible for bringing the Measure before the House and who have worked so hard at it will be greatly encouraged to hear that the House has taken the view which I think that it is now about to take.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pastoral Measure 1968, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

CARAVAN SITES [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to restrict the eviction from caravan sites of occupiers of caravans and make other provision for the benefit of such occupiers and to secure the establishment of such sites by local authorities for the use of gipsies and other persons of nomadic habit, and control in certain areas the unauthorised occupation of land by such persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided in respect of rate support grant under the Local Government Act 1966 which may arise in consequence of provisions of the said Act relating to the provision of caravan sites by local authorities in England and Wales.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Terence Boston discharged from the Select Committee on Agriculture; Mr. Andrew Faulds added.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

R.A.F. STATION, HARTLEBURY (MAINTENANCE UNIT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

9.25 p.m.

Sir Tatton Brinton: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may continue in the absence of the Minister if it is the Minister's own fault.

Sir T. Brinton: I saw him approaching at a gallop, and I thought perhaps he would like to hear what I have to say.
I want to draw the attention of the Ministry of Labour, and also the Ministry of Defence, to the widespread concern which has been caused by the announcement on 19th April that the No. 25 Maintenance Unit R.A.F. at Hartlebury is to be progressively closed down over the next three and a half years. Some little time ago it was announced that a large factory in Woolwich employing 5,000 people was to close down, forcing 5,000 redundancies. This was a matter of national concern. Newspapers took it up all ever the country and it was a very serious matter in its scale.
The point that I want to make is that in scale the seriousness of these redundancies at Woolwich were certainly no greater, and I would suggest, possibly less, than the redundancies which will be caused in and around the Hartlebury Maintenance Unit. In this matter which affects a number of constituencies in the area I have been in very close touch with my hon. Friends in the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and Dudley (Mr. Donald Williams), all of whom have quite a number of employees of No. 25 Maintenance Unit as their constituents.
The main problem arises in my own constituency, although the Maintenance Unit is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. Out of 1,867 employees at the Unit 1,231 reside in the Kidderminster constituency. I am using figures supplied by the Ministry of Defence, but I do not propose to quote them exactly, because I am

not sure if they are really valid. Of the 1,230 people employed at Hartlebury who live in my constituency, there are 955 men and 276 women. The total number of employed persons in the Kidderminster employment exchange area is about 30,000, roughly 18,000 men and 11,000 women.
In the Stourbridge employment exchange area there are about 6,700 employed persons, that is, about 4,700 men and nearly 2,000 women. When one considers the size of these redundancies in relation to the not very large number of employed persons, it will be seen that this matter is of considerable seriousness for my constituency.
The percentage of people employed at Hartlebury, living in the Kidderminster employment exchange areas is 3·2 per cent. and in the Stourbridge area the figure is 4·1 per cent. The figure for women living in Stourbridge, expressed as a percentage of the total number of women employed in that area, is over 6 per cent. The closing down of this unit will obviously cause a very substantial problem in the area.
I want to pass to the human factors involved which should occupy the time of Ministers very seriously. The employees at Hartlebury are representative of a cross-section of the employee population of the country. Out of 1,121 men, 583 are over the age of 50. It is fair to say that of that number 217 are aged 60 or over, and a number are over 65. It might reasonably be argued that people of that age must expect to retire at about the normal retirement age of 65, and that they represent somewhat less of a problem, at any rate at the end of the life of Hartlebury in three and a half years' time.
None the less, that would still leave 366 persons between the ages of 50 and 60, quite a number of them men, with no special skills which would make them easily absorbed into local industry. Out of the 746 women at Hartlebury, 290, well over a third, are over the age of 50. The great majority of that number are between 50 and 60 and they represent a special problem, as they are people who will not be ready for retirement by the time Hartlebury closes down, and for whom special measures will be needed.
There are 77 registered disabled people at this establishment and another 22 who are on light work only. I am told—I have no other figures for this—that this is by no means the end of the story and that there are a number of other people who, for a variety of reasons, are not capable of a full hard day's work but who have been, rightly, employed as an act of common decency. Nonetheless, they will suffer particularly by this closure.
The question of location is obviously of grave importance. Established officers are liable, under their contracts, to move to wherever they may be required to go in the event of closure of the establishment at which they are working. None the less, it is extremely hard on people who are in middle age, or perhaps past middle age, who have worked for many years in an establishment in which they expected to finish their working lives to be asked suddenly to uproot themselves and go to other parts of the country.
The Government have introduced measures which recognise that when industry, through no fault of its own, is forced to dispense with services of its employees it owes them special consideration when it comes to asking them to move, not only their employment, but their homes in order to take up employment elsewhere. This was recognised in the Redundancy Payments Act. I served on the Committee which considered that Measure and remember this point very well.
It appears that certain concessions will be made to established officers of over 50 years of age, but I gather from what I have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues that probably the normal rules will apply to people under 50 years of age. Does this mean that an established officer of, say, 45 years of age who may well have been working since the end of the last war will have to move perhaps to Stafford or Carlisle, the only other two maintenance units remaining open, or an establishment far away, or, alternatively, forfeit all rights to pension or severance pay? If so, the Government are treating their employees substantially worse than any private enterprise concern would do. I cannot believe that that is the case. If established officers say that they cannot move that

sort of distance, will they have any rights? I am not clear about the position.
The closure of a substantial enterprise like this, assuming that it is not followed by the setting up of another to take its place, must have an effect on the various other industries and enterprises in the area which provided services or goods for it. I give one obvious example, the firm of Messrs. Whittle, which on every working day runs 14 coaches from points all round the area to bring 600 people to their work in Hartlebury. Whatever the Government may propose, Whittle's alone would have to dispense with 15 people unless it can find other work for these 14 coaches. Another seven coaches were run by other local bus enterprises, making 21 in all. I give that as an instance of a service which will lose business as a result of this closure.
There is an obvious danger in the phasing out of any closure. In the absence of some clear assurance to the staff as to their future, they are likely to depart long before the date at which their employer wishes them to do so.
I would press the Government very strongly to make their position clear, otherwise I fear that their nicely phased withdrawal lasting for three and a half years may not work at all. The most enterprising, the ablest, and most active of their employees will be looking around in the area to find themselves equally good, or even better, jobs while the going is good, and before the effect of the large dispersal of labour on to the local market becomes too marked. If the staff depart prematurely there will be great difficulty in running Hartlebury and in phasing out its operation.
There is strong local feeling that this is an extravagant operation. Much money has been spent on Hartlebury. A computer has been installed. I am informed on the grape-vine that this is not as foolish as it sounds, because it will pay for itself in two years. If it does, it will be a more rapidly functioning computer than most computers with which I have been associated. It usually takes two years to get the "bugs" out. Assuming that the Government run their computer in a better way than most people do, perhaps that may happen. There has been substantial expenditure, not only on this, but on other forms of equipment such as high density storage.
It seems anomalous to local people that this expenditure should have been incurred so recently, when the whole place was to close down in such a short time. I mention that in passing, merely to set the picture as it looks to the people who will suffer. It is important that their point of view should be taken into account.
What action could the Government take to alleviate the obvious problems? I have made this appeal to the Government in the context of an assumption that the decision was irrevocable and, for reasons which I will not press the Government to produce, possibly correct. They had to cut down by one maintenance unit. They have chosen this one, and their reasons may have been good. I am not questioning that. I am assuming that they know what they will do to alleviate the effects of the closure.
I would suggest that they could transfer branches of other Government departments from the London area to the Hartlebury site, perhaps branches of the Ministry of Defence. Once the place is closed down, there will be excellent accommodation for from 300 to 400 staff. I understand that it is Government policy to disperse Government Departments, or branches of Departments, from the Metropolitan area to the provinces. Quite rightly so. People do not want to come into the high cost-of-living area of London, and the provision of office space in London is much more expensive than in the provinces.
Is there any possibility of alleviating the problem by telling the people who are affected that something else will be moved into the area, some quite different part of the Ministry of Defence, or another Ministry, to take up the slack created by the closure? It would be ideal if such an operation could contain a large element of non-industrial and industrial workers, in addition to staff, but, assuming that is not possible, have the Government any intention of letting or selling the spare space—there are enormous hangars—to industry, in order that industry may help to solve the employment problem.
I would remind the Government that very often when something like this happens far too long is spent in shilly-shallying between Ministry and Ministry

as to whether one Ministry or another can make use of a site which has been vacated.
Can we have a decision? Human lives are involved here. Human beings will inevitably suffer, human beings in my constituency and in the constituencies of Worcester, Bromsgrove, Dudley and Stourbridge, and possibly further afield as well. I do not have the figures here, but they are all gravely worried about their future. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give a word of encouragement that they will not be forgotten and that something will be done for them?

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton) would have been failing in his duty had he not expressed his concern about this pending closure. When he said that the Government acted in matters such as this worse than some private employers, I can only think that he has been reading different newspapers from those which I read about closures which have taken place during the last 12 months.

Sir T. Brinton: I sincerely hope I did not say that. I was not suggesting that the Government had acted worse. I asked whether, in certain cases of redundancy of established civil servants, they would come off worse that employees in similar positions in private industry under the Redundancy Payments Act. I did not intend to cast bricks at the Government—at any rate, not at this stage.

Mr. Fernyhough: I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the general principle of the closure. Representing a heavy industrial constituency, I wish to goodness we were able to give to the coal miners and the various employees of private concerns which have closed down during the last 12 months the same warning period that we have been able to give concerning this closure. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that to phase the rundown of a closure over a three-year period is at least showing some feeling and regard for the people who are to be declared redundant. If we could give all workers who are to become redundant that same notice, many workers would not feel so deeply aggrieved. The hon. Gentleman mentioned G.E.C.


If the workers there had the same time concerning their notices, they would have been much happier.
The workers, although predominantly from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, are drawn from a fairly wide area. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that is so, because he has spoken of the buses which bring them in. These men, or a proportion of them, have a wide variety of skills and experience.
I want to put this problem in its proper perspective. Seventy of the men and 50 of the women employed there are already over retiring age. A further 150 men and a further 50 women will retire before the depôt closes. In addition, an unknown number—we cannot say how many yet—of the established staff are likely to retire at 60, because they have the right to go on pension at that age.
To put the matter in perspective, perhaps I should give the hon. Member some figures. The employees come from Bridgnorth, Kidderminster, Stourport, Worcester, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge and Cleobury Mortimer. At Bridgnorth the unemployment rate at the present time is 1·8 per cent. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency it is 1·3 per cent., at Stourport 0·8 per cent., at Worcester 1·7 per cent., at Bromsgrove 1·2 per cent., at Stourbridge 2·1 per cent. and at Cleobury Mortimer 3·9 per cent. The average rate of unemployment for the areas that I have mentioned is 1·7 per cent., the average rate for the West Midlands is 2·2 per cent. and the national average is 2·5 per cent. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman that we do not feel that this is going to cause us a major problem.

Sir T. Brinton: I, too, have been through these figures very carefully but, while I know that some of the women living in Stourport will retire, none the less at the moment there are 126 of them who will be thrown out of work by this closure. The total number of unemployed women in Stourport, according to the employment exchange, is two, so the potential increase is substantial. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can write off the unemployment question as easily as that because it is low now. This is a very substantial proportion of the people in the whole area.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is, assuming that there are going to be no further job opportunities, but the employment exchanges in the areas concerned place an average of 1,000 people each month and that is in vacancies notified to the exchanges. There are many other vacancies which are not so notified but which are advertised in the Press or which people find out about through personal contact. I am quite sure that some of these people will be able to find alternative employment.
As far as prospects with the Ministry of Defence are concerned, it is hoped to be able to offer jobs in other areas to most established staff who are under 60 and are willing to move. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information he sought off the cuff but I will make inquiries and write to him. There is no means of knowing at this stage how many will accept transfers but we know as a result of our past experience in connection with similar establishments that it is likely to be only 8 or 10 per cent., which would account for probably 100 transfers.
If we look at what has been happening there, wastage at this establishment in the first three months of this year amounted to just over 100 workers. So wastage could account for up to 50 per cent. during the next three years, if our past experience is any guide. This means people who, because the establishment is closing down, have obtained other employment.
I want to make it perfectly clear that staff who are eligible will get all terminal payments, including redundancy payments where applicable, and if they wish to leave in anticipation of redundancy they will not lose their eligibility unless they are key people whom the Ministry would wish to retain for the purpose of maintaining efficiency.

Sir T. Brinton: Is it correct that redundancy payments are made only to non-established personnel, and that established personnel are dealt with on a different basis?

Mr. Fernyhough: I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an answer to his question. Even if they leave before they are given notice by the establishment because they have prospects of another job, they will not lose any of the benefits, and any employee who wishes to


have time off for an interview will be granted it.
The Ministry of Defence will watch the run-down of staff very carefully indeed to ensure that it conforms to the general plan. Every effort will be made to give a minimum of three months' notice to individual workers. Arrangements will be made for the employment exchange staff to go to the base to interview redundant workers well before they are due to leave, and to give them advice and information about other jobs, including retraining in suitable cases. The workers will be allowed all the necessary time off for interviews with prospective employers. My officials at the employment exchanges involved will make special approaches to employers to try and find suitable vacancies and to discuss with them the skills and qualifications of the workers who will become available.
There are 902 vacancies for males, and 809 vacancies for females in the area, but those figures are only a partial guide to the prospects of employment for workers made redundant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the factor which must be taken into account is that the redundancies will be spread over three years. There will therefore be no great impact upon the labour market.
The size of the area from which the workers travel will ease absorption, and there is in these exchanges a continuous turnover of vacancies. As I have already said, almost 1,000 workers are placed in employment every month. That figure does not include those who find jobs on their own. It is our experience that in an area such as this, where there is an obvious demand for labour, we are not likely to encounter much difficulty in

finding alternative employment for those who are likely to be displaced.
My Ministry does not want to see any-one unnecessarily unemployed. It has a fair amount of time in which to find alternative employment for these people and it will make special efforts to do so. I readily acknowlege that we may encounter some additional difficulties in dealing with older people, and the disabled people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. They will be a challenge to my Ministry and I hope that we shall be able to meet it.
The alternative use of the premises is not a matter for me but substantially for the Board of Trade, in deciding whether to give a licence. They determine each application on the facts and needs of the situation. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate from the figures I gave that, whatever his problem, the development areas have a much greater one, and it would be unwise, since we have three years in which to try to resolve this difficulty, to take any benefits from the development areas to give them to his constituency and the neighbouring ones, which, the figures show, are still a prosperous area compared to other regions.
But I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am complacent. I will never be complacent, because of my experience of unemployment, both before and after I entered the House. No one who has represented Jarrow for 21 years could be indifferent to what is, after all, a very human problem, but I hope that time and the general prospects will prove the hon. Gentleman's natural apprehension unjustified.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Ten o'clock.